The philosophical origins of Bitcoin’s civil war

[solarion]

I don't hate ethereum, I just don't think it's unique and speshul the way you do. I'll take ethereum 3.0 over XRP all day long, but that's mostly a reflection of how bad ripple is, not how great ethereum 3.0 is. People stacking it largely fail to recognize the centralization of its structure and most don't even realize that transactions had to be removed due to gaping security holes. It's the LME nickel market of cryptos really. For the little people in the street it's useless garbage. If they need to pay for stuff with it...well don't do that...it sucks at it, but hey, if you've a boardroom meeting it may or may not be useful.

...and thanks for another entire paragraph worth of evasion with regard to counterparty risk assessment. Eventually I take to skimming your responses because they seldom have anything to do with the conversation at hand and this is one of those.

No comment on how/why the Russians apparently see bitcoin as having value and never mentioned ethereum classic/2/3/x?

 

[ds_mustang]

I don't hate ethereum, I just don't think it's unique and speshul the way you do. I'll take ethereum 3.0 over XRP all day long, but that's mostly a reflection of how bad ripple is, not how great ethereum 3.0 is. People stacking it largely fail to recognize the centralization of its structure and most don't even realize that transactions had to be removed due to gaping security holes. It's the LME nickel market of cryptos really. For the little people in the street it's useless garbage.

...and thanks for another entire paragraph worth of evasion with regard to counterparty risk assessment. Eventually I take to skimming your responses because they seldom have anything to do with the conversation at hand and this is one of those.

No comment on how/why the Russians apparently see bitcoin as having value and never mentioned ethereum classic/2/3/x?

I own btc and eth because I can't predict the future so I hedge my bets. But at least I understand the assets that I'm holding and what their goals are.

Russia (and El Salvador) have talked about bitcoin as a currency because for them it would probably be useful as a currency. They don't talk about ethereum as a currency because ethereum is a platform (like the internet), not a currency. Maybe you should read what I'm writing so I don't have to keep repeating the same point over and over. Luckily Russia understands even if solarion doesn't. Maybe making the font bigger will help?

 

[solarion]

...right, a "platform" without any risk...because it's building its own risk pyramid. lol Oh and you can just "swap it for gold backed stable coins" which have "no more risk than physical gold" according to ds_mustang.

You can't even address the most basic of questions, yet claim others don't understand stuff. Thanks for another laugh buddy.

One is NOT buying a "platform" when swapping fiats for ethereum 3.0, they're buying TOKENS. Why this is difficult for YOU to understand is beyond me.

 

[ds_mustang]

...right, a "platform" without any risk...because it's building its own risk pyramid. lol Oh and you can just "swap it for gold backed stable coins" which have "no more risk than physical gold" according to ds_mustang.

You can't even address the most basic of questions, yet claim others don't understand stuff. Thanks for another laugh buddy.

One is NOT buying a "platform" when swapping fiats for ethereum 3.0, they're buying TOKENS. Why this is difficult for YOU to understand is beyond me.

Crypto has a lot of risk. I've never said otherwise. But there are many types of risk and you're conflating them all together. In particular when I bought up stablecoins, you were talking about the price risk that BTC and ETH suffer in a bear market. Stablecoins don't have that sort of price risk as they are price-pegged to other assets like gold or USD. Stablecoins have contract risk and other risks (and some like Tether have counterparty risk), but they don't have the bear market price risk of BTC and ETH.

If you want to talk about other sorts of risks I'm happy to do that but it's a complex subject. You have some homework just getting some basic understanding of these assets first. It would also be helpful if you'd actually used them. Not every crypto is bitcoin.

As for the platform confusion... ETHER (ETH) is the gas token, Ethereum is the network/platform. You used the term "ethereum" in the post I replied to so I presumed you were talking about the network/platform. I guess you meant to say ETH or Ether. But regardless ETH is not a currency, it's a gas token with specific use on the Ethereum network (to pay fees). It's not like bitcoin which has no other use than as a collectable which hopes to one day replace gold as money.

 

[solarion]

<yawn>

Crypto has a lot of risk. I've never said otherwise.

...and you would assess that risk relative to other assets as?

Bitcoin (and its various clones) in particular is nowhere on the pyramid--it is essentially a collectable like gold and aims to replace Exeter's pyramid with their own pyramid placing itself as the pyramid's base asset.

...useless bs non-answer.

When someone is swapping fiats for the ever morphing hot garbage called ethereum classic 2.0 3.0 they're changing their risk profile RIGHT? So how does that swap from fiat to ethereum affect one's overall risk relative to swapping fiats for physical gold? No meaningful answer...as usual, just a bunch of silly blather about how nobody save ds_mustang understands how amazing dumb contracts are.

You're in a thread about the bitcoin civil war and you've already called bitcoin a "wanna be gold replacement" and blathered about how wonderful ethereum is for a couple pages.

But there are many types of risk and you're conflating them all together.

Right but there's no way to compare overall risk amongst different assets, cuz that'd be much too complicated. Instead let's discuss risk pyramid building projects. lol

 

[ds_mustang]

<yawn>


...and you would assess that risk relative to other assets as?

...useless bs non-answer.

When someone is swapping fiats for the ever morphing hot garbage called ethereum classic 2.0 3.0 they're changing their risk profile RIGHT? So how does that swap from fiat to ethereum affect one's overall risk relative to swapping fiats for physical gold? No meaningful answer...as usual, just a bunch of silly blather about how nobody save ds_mustang understands how amazing dumb contracts are.

You're in a thread about the bitcoin civil war and you've already called bitcoin a "wanna be gold replacement" and blathered about how wonderful ethereum is for a couple pages.

Right but there's no way to compare overall risk amongst different assets, cuz that'd be much too complicated. Instead let's discuss risk pyramid building projects. lol

I've been trying explain how to think about these assets so their risks (and potential upsides) can be evaluated. If you think you're going to be able to figure a risk profile for these assets without understanding how one is a money, the other is a platform, neither exist on Exeter's pyramid, etc, all I can say is "good luck."

Meanwhile you're the one who bought up the Exeter's pyramid and incorrectly stated bitcoin exists on it somewhere. I'm just trying to correct your errors and educate you a bit. But you've been pretty clear you don't care what I say and don't really read my posts anyway.

 

[ds_mustang]

<yawn>


...and you would assess that risk relative to other assets as?

...useless bs non-answer.

When someone is swapping fiats for the ever morphing hot garbage called ethereum classic 2.0 3.0 they're changing their risk profile RIGHT? So how does that swap from fiat to ethereum affect one's overall risk relative to swapping fiats for physical gold? No meaningful answer...as usual, just a bunch of silly blather about how nobody save ds_mustang understands how amazing dumb contracts are.

You're in a thread about the bitcoin civil war and you've already called bitcoin a "wanna be gold replacement" and blathered about how wonderful ethereum is for a couple pages.

Right but there's no way to compare overall risk amongst different assets, cuz that'd be much too complicated. Instead let's discuss risk pyramid building projects. lol

To get an idea why you're confused, and how frustrating it is for me to discuss with you... imagine that every time someone talked about the internet, someone else started asking them questions thinking they were talking about gold. Because that's basically what's happening here.

 

[arminius]

I'm just trying to correct your errors and educate you a bit.

 

[solarion]

Meanwhile you're the one who bought up the Exeter's pyramid and incorrectly stated bitcoin exists on it somewhere.

That isn't what I said bud. ...but then you knew that already. ...which means you're being intellectually dishonest...again.

If that's the case, then tell me please where bitcoin and a theoretical ethereum 3.0 would belong on Exeter's pyramid.

It most certainly is not at the bottom with physical gold and silver. Now one could make the case that bitcoin's risk is somewhere between base and bank currency. ...and if so, then ethereum 3.0 MUST be some point higher on this inverted pyramid and therefore more risky.

I was just hoping beyond hope to get a single straight answer from you at some point, and thought perhaps if I voluntarily offered my own take, that you'd do likewise, but I've wasted enough time trying to discuss things with you previously to realize you speak in circles. You acknowledge risk, but do not quantify it, and when you do it's ridiculous comments that are provably false, like this...

Like it freaking matters WHY there's risk, there's risk that's > zero. You acknowledge this freely, but the second it comes to comparing said risk to that of other assets, you default to meaningless word salad mode. You're damn right there may be a bug...like the one that caused ethereum to be split into "new" ethereum and "ethereum classic", because the developers were too god damn dumb to understand how security works. Then they compounded the problem x1000 by reversing transactions to make certain asset holders whole...PRECISELY as the LME did recently in the nickel pit.

Yes there's lots of counterparty risk with ethereum 2.0 3.0 and much of that risk comes from the douchebags developing it. Physical gold in hand does not have a history of reversed transactions.

You speak about decentralized stablecoins as though they're some perfect solution to everything, with no counterparty risk save stupid software developers, but that's just silly. Stablecoins are merely cryptos with pegs to something else. Those kinds of pegs can and do fail all the time, but you go right on pretending as though that risk doesn't exist and that nobody else can possibly understand any of it. ROFL.

 

[Nomis Elpmis]

Bitcoin BSV is Bitcoin restored to it's original design, is smart contract capable and scalable on chain. Bitcoin BTC was deliberately 'constrained' through limiting block size and removing coding that permitted smart contracts. Vitalic Buterin spun off Ethereum because BTC devs removed the part of the protocol that he wanted to develop (smart contracts) and had an 'unconstrained' vision. Vitalic is taking ETH to an even more 'unconstrained' position with 'Proof of Stake' consensus. Bitcoin BSV is different in that it doesn't fit neatly into these 2 categories. BSV is constrained by sticking to a 'Proof of Work' consensus, but unrestrained by enabling smart contracts and unlimited block size. I think ETH is going too far 'out on a limb' and it's 'unconstrained' complexity will not allow it to scale to a global system. BTC is so 'constrained' that it's architecture is purposely too simplistic and already has to rely on '2nd layer' systems to scale to a global level.

 

[Nomis Elpmis]

Here's a screenshot of 'defi yield farming' with smart contracts running on BSV called 'Tokenswap'. I staked about 34 BSV and earn about 1 BSV a month in interest. Not willing to risk more because this website could just disappear and there are no safeguards. So, high risk does equals high reward, but also potentially being instantly wiped out if there is a 'rug pull'.

 

[Nomis Elpmis]

Data is now an emerging commodity. BSV standardizes data into units that can back a digital currency. We went off the gold standard to an oil standard and now we are fazing slowly onto a data standard. Gold has little utility and it's value is limited. Oil has high utility and has good value. Data is gaining in utility and is gaining value.

 

[ds_mustang]

That isn't what I said bud. ...but then you knew that already. ...which means you're being intellectually dishonest...again.

You asked where ETH was on the pyramid. Then you said the following, which to me tries to put bitcoin on the pyramid as a dollar derivative (WHICH IT'S NOT), and that ETH is somewhere even higher. IMO NEITHER are on the pyramid as I explained. And now you accuse me of being dishonest when it's right there in what you said in the quote here:

It most certainly is not at the bottom with physical gold and silver. Now one could make the case that bitcoin's risk is somewhere between base and bank currency. ...and if so, then ethereum 3.0 MUST be some point higher on this inverted pyramid and therefore more risky.

Bitcoin is in many ways a debt dollar derivative. What many miss is that the dollar is a derivative of gold. The US dollar quite literally has value worldwide due to the pile of gold the US amassed over time, particularly between and during the two world wars. There is no asset with less risk than physical gold and silver because the vast majority of people want gold and silver, not because of what they can buy, but because they desire that thing itself.

I was just hoping beyond hope to get a single straight answer from you at some point, and thought perhaps if I voluntarily offered my own take, that you'd do likewise, but I've wasted enough time trying to discuss things with you previously to realize you speak in circles. You acknowledge risk, but do not quantify it, and when you do it's ridiculous comments that are provably false, like this...

View attachment 252299

Like it freaking matters WHY there's risk, there's risk that's > zero. You acknowledge this freely, but the second it comes to comparing said risk to that of other assets, you default to meaningless word salad mode. You're damn right there may be a bug...like the one that caused ethereum to be split into "new" ethereum and "ethereum classic", because the developers were too god damn dumb to understand how security works. Then they compounded the problem x1000 by reversing transactions to make certain asset holders whole...PRECISELY as the LME did recently in the nickel pit.

Yes there's lots of counterparty risk with ethereum 2.0 3.0 and much of that risk comes from the douchebags developing it. Physical gold in hand does not have a history of reversed transactions.

You speak about decentralized stablecoins as though they're some perfect solution to everything, with no counterparty risk save stupid software developers, but that's just silly. Stablecoins are merely cryptos with pegs to something else. Those kinds of pegs can and do fail all the time, but you go right on pretending as though that risk doesn't exist and that nobody else can possibly understand any of it. ROFL.

I talk about risk quite often, and I agree with you there is significant risk in these assets. I even mentioned some risks these assets have like contract risk specifically. Yet here you are accusing me of ignoring risk because I correctly pointed out that decentralized stablecoins don't have "counterparty risk" which was exactly the type of risk YOU mentioned in the post I was responding to. So the issue isn't that I don't acknowledge the risks, it's that when we have a discussion you can't identify the correct risks to even talk about, and then when I try to educate you, you go off on a nearly incoherent rant about issues that I mostly agree with you about at least when they are stated correctly.

Our discussion would go a lot better if you were adult enough to accept a correction or acknowledge when I make a valid point and then move on. It's really not that big a deal. It's like you just have to find something, ANYTHING, in a post that I might be wrong about so you can rant on about how dumb or dishonest I am. It's not a great look on you.

 

[ds_mustang]

Bitcoin BSV is Bitcoin restored to it's original design, is smart contract capable and scalable on chain. Bitcoin BTC was deliberately 'constrained' through limiting block size and removing coding that permitted smart contracts. Vitalic Buterin spun off Ethereum because BTC devs removed the part of the protocol that he wanted to develop (smart contracts) and had an 'unconstrained' vision. Vitalic is taking ETH to an even more 'unconstrained' position with 'Proof of Stake' consensus. Bitcoin BSV is different in that it doesn't fit neatly into these 2 categories. BSV is constrained by sticking to a 'Proof of Work' consensus, but unrestrained by enabling smart contracts and unlimited block size. I think ETH is going too far 'out on a limb' and it's 'unconstrained' complexity will not allow it to scale to a global system. BTC is so 'constrained' that it's architecture is purposely too simplistic and already has to rely on a '2nd layer' systems to scale to a global level.

It's nice that BSV has added smart contracts, though I'm not sure much of the market cares at this point. If Craig is Satoshi, he shouldn't have given up the project and then we wouldn't be in this mess that we're in. Craig has a better view on a number of things that those that got control of bitcoin after he left.

 

[Goldbrix]

Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves and crypto is the money of the insane​

took a historic quote and made a funny
modeled from a similar statement i read somewhere
pure comedy, not trying to make a statement of any kind

 

[Mujahideen]

From my limited understanding of the subject: if Craig wright is satoshi, I’m not sure if he is, that is irrelevant because btc represents evolution. Ideas change over time especially as new technology is available.

 

[Nomis Elpmis]

From my limited understanding of the subject: if Craig wright is satoshi, I’m not sure if he is, that is irrelevant because btc represents evolution. Ideas change over time especially as new technology is available.

Saw that debate when it aired. Was a good one.

 

[ds_mustang]

You can view the market's confidence level on Craig Wright and BSV at any time by just comparing the price of BSV vs Bitcoin since BSV is a Bitcoin fork.

Right now BSV is $70.50 vs $35,500 for BTC. So the market gives BSV and Craig much less than even 1% of the credibility and value of Bitcoin. The market even likes joke meme coins like Shib and dogecoin way more than BSV.