At the end of the day, it’s YOU, the users of Bitcoin or any cryptocoin will decide the fate of crytocurency. Nobody put the gun at your head to force you to use Bitcoin or any crytocoin. You join in of your own volition, presumably because you love the liberty, the total self-responsibility, the total control of your property that the Bitcoin offers. Your freewill and responsible participation, your goods and services give life and value to the Bitcoin or any cryto-coin.
That means It’s YOU, the majority of users have the true power, not the few of riches with powerful machine.. It’s YOU , who have the power to accept or reject THEIR COINS and make THEM rich or become the fools and the looser. Like kings, politicians, etc They BECOME powerful over YOU because YOU let them be by being irresponsible to yourselves and mere followers.
Do your home work and decide for yourselves what is good for YOU, what serves YOU best. This power is exactly what I love. I cherish and why I use the cryoto-blockchain currency, particularly the Satoshi Bitcoin. YOU and I the free-will users, have the freewill power to choose using one, two, or all of them or none of them at all. That’s why Governments and the Banskters hate and fear crypto-currency particularly the Bitcoin, the most popular and most successful so far. The Bitcoin has rapidly been tripping off their controlling power over YOU and me. Bitcoin is the existential threat to Power, the statist system. Thus THEY all have tried hard in every way to destroy the Bitcoin by spreading fake news, disinformation, causing confusion, instilling fear in order to keep people away from Cryptocurrency and remained being slave to fiat-money. Since 2009, They have failed and will fail. Look at and learn a lesson from the history of Marijuana!
If ANY WORST THING HAPPENS, don’t blame anyone but YOU yourselves.
I personally prefer the original Bitcoin created by Satoshi Nakamoto and the way “He” or his group intended (Please read the White Paper) . After all, “Satoshi Nakamoto” (中本哲史) –zhōng běn zhé shǐ or Trung Bản Triết Sử in Vietnamese, mean the “Center (fundamental) root of wisdom in (of) History”. Or more precisely, if one prefers “the main root of bright history”.
Before I get going, let me start out with the usual disclaimer. I’m not a Bitcoin expert, nor do I claim to be. I love people who live and breathe Bitcoin every day, and I have the utmost respect for all of you, but that’s not me. As you can tell from a quick glance at my website, my current focus revolves around the current political environment as well as the geopolitical implications of a declining U.S. empire. That said, I’ve been involved in Bitcoin since 2012, and I care deeply about it. In my opinion, globally interconnected humans functioning within decentralized systems of economics and political governance provide the best framework for the human species going forward. We have the tools, we just need the desire.
Today’s post is about an alt-coin that is about to fork from Bitcoin, led by a contingency in the civil war known as the big blockers. This piece is not meant for newbies, but is written for people who own Bitcoin and already have a good understanding of all the drama that’s been going on, and may continue to periodically resurface after August 1. If you aren’t already up to speed on these things you should probably stop reading. The post will just sound confusing and won’t have much impact on your decision making anyway.
First of all, I don’t think there will be any debate around what the “real Bitcoin” is following the fork and creation of an alt-coin called Bitcoin Cash (BCC). This coin will be a pet project of big blockers wanting to both save face, and also potentially hurt the original Bitcoin (BTC). Only time will tell if some of those considered “bad actors” will try to target the original Bitcoin out of pettiness, but you should never underestimate what people with a lot of money/power and huge egos will do. History is replete with the ruins of the crazed actions of these types.
If you control your private keys, you should be able to access BCC sometime after August 1st. Some people are describing this as a dividend, although it seems more like an asset spinoff to me. Either way, BCC will have some sort of value on or around August 1st, and a market will start being made. So how should people concerned about potential bad actors on the side of BCC think about all of this? Let’s start with a few tweets from Whale Panda that I think are important to ponder.
— WhalePanda (@WhalePanda) July 25, 2017
With that in mind, take a watch of this recent interview of Roger Ver. Roger is considered to be one of the largest holders of Bitcoin, and owns bitcoin.com
That video definitely made me feel that Roger could act in a hostile way following the launch of BCC. I really hope he swallows his pride and doesn’t go down that route, but we can’t make that assumption. I think we absolutely need to prepare for the possibility that some bad actors will try to harm Bitcoin using BCC. Here are a few more tweets from Whale Panda.
Since I think Whale Panda is onto something, the most logical way to defend against the threat from a market psychology perspective is to hold onto your BCC even if you think it’s garbage. You have to understand that if bad actors want to make Bitcoin look bad, and their alt-coin look good, price will be a huge part of their strategy.
It might make sense to hold onto your BCC out of the gate in order to prevent bad actors from buying up the entire float. This would prevent them from then dumping their BTC on the market at a date of their choosing (while controlling all the BCC), thus and ensuring it goes up while Bitcoin drops. I’m not saying this is my assumption, I’m saying it’s possible. As such, consider holding on to your BCC to prevent a successful execution of this strategy. That way, if BTC does drop as BCC rises in a manipulated event, you have dry powder to take the other side of the trade. The risk in this strategy is that BCC crashes right away, never recovers, and you lose that free money, but if that happens you’ll still probably benefit from a rising BTC price.
At the end of the day, everyone should do what they feel is right. I could be completely nuts here. I’m just putting all of this out there in the event some of you haven’t thought through this potential outcome. I at least want people to be aware of what might happen, I have no idea of the likelihood of such a scenario.
Personally, I hope Roger, Jihan and whoever else don’t go down that route. If they do, they will be rightly demonized and remembered as the egomaniacs who tried to kill Bitcoin. Sure float your alt-coin and let people choose, but don’t start playing nefarious games. If you do, the Bitcoin community will rally together like never before and it won’t be good for you. I ask that you peacefully stand down.
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be put at risk even in a hundred battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Before I get started, let me just state the obvious. I’m admittedly the furthest thing from a Bitcoin expert imaginable. Some people associate me with Bitcoin because I was relatively early in seeing its tremendous potential for positive change, writing my first public piece on the subject in August 2012, when the price was about $10. If you never read it, here it is: Bitcoin: A Way to Fight Back Against the Financial Terrorists?
For the next couple of years I wrote about Bitcoin extensively, proselytizing about it to anyone who would listen; especially to some of my friends who remained in the financial services industry, though most of these efforts proved fruitless. As time went by, more and more people became interested in Bitcoin, and I simply became outclassed as a commentator on the topic. I decided to opine less and listen more, especially since I started to spend much less time reading and thinking about Bitcoin, and became much more focused on politics. With so many far more knowledgeable Bitcoin thinkers out there, I’ve taken an entirely appropriate backseat on the punditry front. If I feel I have nothing meaningful to add to the debate, why enter the debate at all?
Vinny Lingham’s writings were instrumental in my decision to take a backseat in the realm of Bitcoin commentary. When I saw his deep understanding of the technology coupled with a track record for making accurate macro price forecasts, I knew how important his voice was, and I started highlighting his work as opposed to producing my own. Over the last week or so, Vinny has weighed into the Bitcoin scaling debate with two very important articles. I’ll admit, the first article freaked me out significantly for several days. Particularly this part:
It’s inarguable that Bitcoin is the single strongest brand in the crypto space. I believe it probably received $2–5bn in free media exposure over the years. A Hard Fork would create 2 brands of Bitcoin — essentially handing over some brand value to Bitcoin Unlimited. I wrote a post about Bitcoin’s power and network effect over 2 years ago — it’s worth reading if you haven’t.
If a split is portrayed badly in the media and creates confusion, we will possibly go into another 2 years of sideways and down. Do we have that much time again with other competitors on the heels? And let’s be frank, a Hard Fork is not Bitcoin dying. It’s Bitcoin duplicating. Now we have two Bitcoins, both won’t die, maybe one will. Which one is the real Bitcoin? Do not underestimate how many enemies Bitcoin has — a fork will just give them all the ammunition they need to confuse the market.
The whole point about Bitcoin being a long term store of value is that there are only 21m coins, ever. Stability, security and scarcity are the differentiation properties of Bitcoin, a contentious Hard Fork attacks these properties and will be strongly reflected in the price. After a Hard Fork, we will be sitting with 33m “Bitcoins”, on track for 42m and we’ll be having arguments about which one is the legitimate Bitcoin for years to come. You can expect legal cases to arise around the use of the brand, as the Ethereum Classic Investment Trust has shown.
Imagine someone says: I want to buy Bitcoin. Next question is: Which one?! After that, the very next question will be :
“What if one of these coins fork again — then we will have 63m coins, and so on and so forth.”
I can tell you with 100% certainty that a huge part of the appeal of Bitcoin for so many of us was the network’s stable, transparent supply curve. One of the biggest critiques of the naysayers in the early days was that it was just code, what’s to stop it from being nefariously altered in the future? Unfortunately, we’ve come to a point in the road where we’re being confronted with this exact contentious reality. So how did we get here?
First as Vinny explained in his Fork in the Road post:
Bitcoin was largely built on the premise that economic forces and self interest would help govern the security of the network. We talk a lot about decentralization but the reality is that the hardware that powers Bitcoin is produced by a handful of companies who also control mining pools which can be used against the network.
That was just an appetizer to more expansive commentary on the issue of centralization, which he outlined in his next piece, The Power of the Invisible Hand.
The goal of this post is not to get to the bottom of Andrew’s tweets or discuss the details around it. I’ll leave that up to the community to figure out. I want to instead focus on answering just 2 questions — “How did we get here?!” and “Where do we go from here?!”
Now, before we all start blaming Roger, Jihan, John or anyone else for the current situation we’re faced with (an impending hard fork), let’s look inward. How did we get to the point where just a handful of players in a $20bn ecosystem could plausibly derail a peer to peer, globally distributed and seemingly decentralized network. It shouldn’t be possible. But it is. Even if their intentions are being misunderstood, and they mean well, the fact that it’s possible means that if it’s not them, it will just be another group in time trying to achieve the same outcomes. We need to fix this, but it’s not a short term fix.
To a large extent, Bitcoin has been a victim of its own recent successes. Since the recent halving event in July last year, Bitcoin has already doubled in price. This has resulted in miners earning larger transaction fees and demanding larger blocks, which will result in more centralization as it gives larger mining pools an edge. The higher the price goes, the less likely we are to get to an agreement with miners. The market keeps rewarding them for keeping the Bitcoin network secure, because the price keeps rising? Or is it.
Irrespective of the scaling debate, we seem to have an uncomfortably centralized Bitcoin ecosystem in some important and meaningful ways. It is this backdrop which makes the current situation so concerning, and it is this backdrop that has made Bitcoin as vulnerable as it is right now.
Now here’s where it gets even more concerning. Many observers are warning that Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), if it happens, could make the centralization issue even worse. As Vinny notes:
Bitcoin has been criticized for a lack of governance or the ability to break a deadlock. So, in the example of the scaling debate, a group called Bitcoin Unlimited broke away to create what they believe to be true to the founding principles of Bitcoin.
Unlimited wants to have larger block sizes, and this means that larger pools will benefit more, leading to more centralization of Bitcoin mining and higher fees for them (more transactions per block). Their argument is that block sizes were never meant to be constrained. Arguably, they’re right, but mining centralization with ASICs has meant that this is not an option right now. If we were to revert to another Proof of Work algorithm that was more decentralized, then I would be very supportive of larger block sizes.
If this is right (people I respect disagree on whether BU will make the miner centralization problem worse), this is a gigantic elephant in the room for Bitcoin Unlimited. It also makes it increasingly likely that behind the scenes the Chinese government is supporting BU as a way to either take over Bitcoin or destroy it from within. You may think this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but after looking at this debate from all angles, I’ve come to the conclusion that this whole thing has seemingly morphed into a state sponsored attack (read more here). That’s not to say the whole push started out this way, but I think the Chinese government saw an opportunity and pounced on it. If this is true, BU shouldn’t be derisively referred to as RogerCoin, it should be called ChinaCoin.
While I’m no Bitcoin expert, I’m friends with several people who are. Big names in the space who I’ve gotten to know over the years, and whose opinions I respect and honesty I trust. All of them confirm my suspicion about the Chinese government even if they disagree on other points, which got me thinking further. If this is the case, then those arguing against BU and a hard fork are doing it all wrong. With all due respect, simply telling people to hold onto to their Bitcoins assuming it will all work out and demonizing Roger Ver and his ego is the completely wrong strategy. It’s both naive and counterproductive. Naive, because if we are indeed battling a state actor, we need to take off the rose-colored glasses immediately. Counterproductive, because we are spreading the narrative that there’s a civil war in Bitcoin that may not really exist. We should not mistake a coup for a civil war, these are two very, very different things, and they need to be addressed differently.
As I tweeted earlier today:
Strategy suggestion for BU opponents. Forget Ver, focus all energy on saying this is a fight against Chinese state and centralized miners.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) March 20, 2017
At this point, I want to be clear about where I stand on this entire debate. I’m not knowledgeable enough on Bitcoin and the technicalities of what’s going on to make a cogent argument defending Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Unlimited. What I can do is trust the judgement of the people I respect most in Bitcoin, and I’ve discovered that those people are opposed to BU and the idea of a hard fork. The point of this post is a friendly wakeup call pointing out that the current narrative against BU appears both childish and ineffective.
If the Chinese state is in any way involved in this behind the scenes, then those opposed to what is going on need to wake up and smell the danger. Understanding your opponent is a key component to winning a battle such as this, and if the message is simply “don’t sell your bitcoin, everything will be fine,” and “isn’t Roger Ver’s huge ego terrible,” the outcome may not be the one you desire.
In my mind it’s time to face the music and deal with reality. If you want to control the narrative around BU, then you need to associate it with the Chinese government. Not just because it will be effective, but because it’s probably true.
To conclude, this post merely addresses a near-term issue related to BU and a potential hard fork. I think those against such an outcome need to get control of the narrative and fight fire with fire. That said, preventing a worst case scenario in this specific instance doesn’t solve Bitcoin’s bigger miner centralization problem, it’s merely addressing a symptom of a larger issue. As Vinny noted:
How did we get to the point where just a handful of players in a $20bn ecosystem could plausibly derail a peer to peer, globally distributed and seemingly decentralized network. It shouldn’t be possible. But it is. Even if their intentions are being misunderstood, and they mean well, the fact that it’s possible means that if it’s not them, it will just be another group in time trying to achieve the same outcomes. We need to fix this, but it’s not a short term fix.
This is the big issue, and I’d be way out of my league to begin to chime in on how to solve it. I’ll leave that to the actual experts.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page.
Although I have followed Bitcoin over the years a bit, I am admittedly pretty ignorant on the subject. What really caught my eye in the last couple of days was an article in Forbes detailing the fact that when the big financial institutions initiated a blockade on Wikileaks, the whistleblowing organization was still able to accept donations via Bitcoin.
It used to be that people had secrets and the government was transparent; now it’s the people that lack privacy and the government has secrets. Freedom of payments is an extension of financial privacy and digital cash-like transactions without financial intermediaries become a critical piece of that foundation. Money was never intended to act as a form of identity tracking or payments restriction and this is why the option for anonymous and untraceable transactions is so vital as society moves to a world of digital currency.
To those that don’t support freedom of payments, consider this financial blockade invoked in the name of political correctness before you dismiss the inherent value of a nonpolitical unit of account and of a decentralized medium of exchange. It should be offensive to most free-minded people that you are not the final arbiter of how and where you spend your money. Bitcoin restores the balance.
I don’t think Bitcoin is THE answer. It could be part of a solution. Gold could do it. Silver could do it. They key point; however, is that in a world in which payment is increasingly digital we need more options for a medium of exchange. Governments themselves should arguably get out of the money businesses entirely and let people and business transact with each other however they deem appropriate.
One thing that each and every one of us needs to agree on is that the ability to buy and sell certainly shouldn’t be in the hands of these TBTF (too big to fail) financial terrorist institutions. These institutions, which have raped and pillaged this country in the last several years, shouldn’t even exist let alone have this kind of power. The mere existence of these institutions is an insult to every single American alive today and an embarrassment to the memory of our ancestors who aggressively guarded the liberty and freedom this current generation of leaders is so willing to give away. As Neil Barofsky, the former Special Inspector General for TARP, so eloquently put it today:
As I saw first hand while providing oversight of the bank bailouts as the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and as I detail in my recently released book Bailout, this perception was embraced by both Bush and Obama Treasury officials, who repeatedly turned away my efforts to impose conditions, restrictions and transparency on the banks. They declared such measures unnecessary because the banks “would never risk their reputations” by putting profit over the public interest.
Two years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, and in the wake of the recent proliferation of scandals involving the largest banks, many are now embracing this cinematic truth, with even the banker’s Dr. Frankenstein himself, Sandy Weil (whose Citigroup was the founding model of the megabanks of today), picking up a pitchfork and joining the growing mob of academics, regulators, former bank executives, Occupiers and Tea Partiers in calling for the monster to be torn apart.
Read the Forbes article on Bitcoin here.
Read Barofsky’s piece on the bipartisan support for the financial terrorists here.