Bitcoin...

[CLains]

I think Bitcoin will handle the situation, ironically exactly not because of its "pureness," but because of the intangible community, social consensus and haphazardly assembled "voting" solutions.. like BitShares has realized all along, the human world of implementation is messy, and the social cyberpunk aspects begin to shine exactly when the seemingly perfect, utopian technology begins to crack in practice.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Both sides are delusional.

The XT guys in thinking that Bitcoin can ever even approach mainstream adoption with it's 10min- 1h confirmation time, rising fees and falling security.

The Core guys in pretending that Bitcoin is not already horribly centralized and deanonymized.

it is so painful knowing bitcoin is so inferior to at least 50% of the tokens out there (most of which BTS) and to watch this struggle when many of the answers are on this little forum.

!!

[fuzzy]

Both sides are delusional.

The XT guys in thinking that Bitcoin can ever even approach mainstream adoption with it's 10min- 1h confirmation time, rising fees and falling security.

The Core guys in pretending that Bitcoin is not already horribly centralized and deanonymized.

it is so painful knowing bitcoin is so inferior to at least 50% of the tokens out there (most of which BTS) and to watch this struggle when many of the answers are on this little forum.

[luckybit]

Sharedropping on them would be seen as an act of war. They could sharedrop on us too and take it there and do we want that?

Look at the market caps? In my opinion yes, make Bitcoin like currencies on the Bitshares blockchain, even make some mined currencies, why not? But don't focus on the Bitcoin community.

Create a new community because the amount of money isn't going to increase if you keep competing for the same shrinking group of people. If Bitcoiners for example lose their money in some big hack, and the entire crypto economy is made up of Bitcoiners, well now all the coins go down.

[starspirit]

Just brainstorming here - maybe there is a gap in the market between bitcoin, where there are network constraints, and BTS, which is not widely viewed as an immutable currency due to its history and share-like nature.

1. Create a coin on the bitshares block-chain that offers all of the key currency features of bitcoin that its community wants, but with all the advantages of a superior network. i.e. a coin with a "definitively" fixed (possibly even zero) inflation schedule into perpetuity, super fast and high capacity.

2. Sharedrop a large amount of the coin based on all BTC addresses at a specific date that show evidence of use in the prior year (assuming a drop based on accounts on another network is even possible?). This could favour smaller over larger accounts to decentralise the distribution compared to bitcoin currently, and using a historic date removes the possible manipulation of large BTC holders opening up lots of new smaller accounts.

3. Sharedrop a portion on other selected communities (e.g. Litecoin, Bitshares?).

4. Keep a portion aside for merchants setting up for payments in the coin; a portion for free promotions to the wider public, and a portion paid for use of the coin (the latter to discourage immediate dumping of any sharedrop amount, and encourage familiarity and use).

5. Split the network fees charged on all transactions between the block-producers, and BTS holders as owners of the network.

The problem for mainstream acceptance, at least initially, remains volatility (value uncertainty). But a wallet providing instant locks and unlocks for pegged USD might suffice.

[donkeypong]

If they can get through it and come out in one piece, the experience could strengthen Bitcoin, but there might be some real sour grapes left over. In any case, its technology is fundamentally flawed, so...we have BitShares.

[bytemaster]

Both sides are delusional.

The XT guys in thinking that Bitcoin can ever even approach mainstream adoption with it's 10min- 1h confirmation time, rising fees and falling security.

The Core guys in pretending that Bitcoin is not already horribly centralized and deanonymized.

[triox]

Both sides are delusional.

The XT guys in thinking that Bitcoin can ever even approach mainstream adoption with it's 10min- 1h confirmation time, rising fees and falling security.

The Core guys in pretending that Bitcoin is not already horribly centralized and deanonymized.

[luckybit]

I suspect it will split their community, at least initially, to something like 10% core and 90% XT.

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/chart

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Divide.. conquer... BitShares will take up the XT supporters.. diminished bitcoin core will carry on..  bitassets start getting more market support and eat up what is left of core.

[Tuck Fheman]

I suspect it will split their community, at least initially, to something like 10% core and 90% XT.

[Thom]

I suspect it will split their community, at least initially, to something like 10% core and 90% XT. It's the mining pools that will carry the day and decide percentages, and their incentives are maximized with XT.

I hold less than 1 BTC, so I have little concern over this, aside from philosophical principles. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and is a good test case for BitShares / Identibit.

[luckybit]

Here is how I see it. The Bitcoin community is trying to decide whether Bitcoin should be a DAC (decentralized autonomous corporation) or a DAC (decentralized anonymous currency).

These are two different evolutionary trajectories, and they have impact on the Bitcoin price. The Bitcoin XT side seems to want Bitcoin to achieve mainstream adoption, and if you're thinking of Bitcoin as a DAC (decentralized autonomous corporation) then you care about the share price, or the Bitcoin price.

Bitcoin XT supports greater levels of adoption, which means a higher potential Bitcoin price for token holders. If you're invested in Counterparty, Omni, or similar projects which build on top of Bitcoin then Bitcoin XT raising the blocksize is critical so that you can use Bitcoin as more than just a currency.  Wall Street has moved in, and Bitcoin XT is the chain that Wall Street will favor because they want to see the Bitcoin price rise over time, which is why there are ETFs being set up so people can buy Bitcoin as if it is a stock and use their life savings to do it.  You also have Coinbase and Circle which are set up to bring Bitcoin to the mainstream, all of this will boost the Bitcoin price which means Bitcoin is more likely to be treated as a commodity or stock than a currency.

On the Bitcoin Core side the Bitcoin price is irrelevant. Bitcoin is just to be the DAC (decentralized anonymous currency), to be used by activists. Bitcoin Core is focused more on making sure Bitcoin stays anonymous, and that the particular kind of decentralization supports Bitcoin use for activists, not for Wall Street, not for the mainstream. At the same time Bitcoin Core don't seem to be thinking about Bitcoin as a DAC decentralized autonomous corporation, so whether it ever achieves mainstream adoption is irrelevant as long as it provides utility to activists, and as long as it is anonymous.

These are two different world views and the Bitcoin price is mainly at $200 because people believe Bitcoin is like a stock. Once people believe Bitcoin isn't like a stock, and that Bitcoin is not a DAC (decentralized autonomous corporation), then the price even at $200 might be inflated and we could be back in the $90-100 range.

If Bitcoin is to be a decentralized autonomous corporation as you see here:
http://coinwiki.info/en/Decentralized_autonomous_corporation
Then Bitcoin share prices have dropped, shareholders are concerned, and these shareholders control the majority of the money and through that they control the future price of Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin is a decentralized anonymous currency, then Bitcoin has to improve it's privacy features, and shake off the Wall Street profiteers, the businesses around Bitcoin who want to take it to the mainstream, because for the most part if it is to be an effective activist currency, none of that mainstream  Wall Street NASDAQ stuff is going to matter. At the same time, activists usually don't have any money so you shouldn't expect the Bitcoin price to rise very high as an activist currency.

Who will control the fate of Bitcoin? Will it be the shareholders or will it be the core developers? These are two different constituencies. Miners also have the ultimate choice because they have to choose the chain, but will miners choose the chain where Bitcoin price can rise dramatically or will miners choose the chain where Bitcoin price stays flat? Since most of us here aren't miners, it's for the miners to ultimately decide which vision for Bitcoin they prefer.