Bitcoin: let's go back to the beginning?
Not in the sense of price, but in the sense of principles.
1. Crisis and Bitcoin
As you know, “in 2008, a file describing the protocol and principle of operation of the payment system as a peer-to-peer network was published by a person or group of people under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto ... development began in 2007. In 2009, he completed the development of the protocol and published the code of the client program. The Bitcoin network has been launched. ”
')
And everyone appreciated this hint as transparent: the global financial crisis of 2007-2009. brought to the arena a new instrument with the help of which it was possible to defeat such phenomena as speculation, inflation, and collectively - any manipulations by society with the help of complex economic instruments of the CDO format.
10 years have passed since the start of development, 9 years since the publication of the White Paper, 8 years since launch. And what do we have?
Exactly the same problems: deals on rumors, the game of "perpetual" growth, which is not secured by anything ... However, btc experts will probably object to me and bring a lot of facts "for". But I am always interested in the essence of processes, and not the verbal juggling of their description.
The essence is that, say, in Iceland, Greece, Russia and other countries where the crisis hit people hardest, for those who lost, 99% did not change: they did not become millionaires thanks to Bitcoin, they did not return the housing, and most importantly - in no way could they change the tax burden, which becomes only from year to year due to various tricks of the legislator and the law enforcer.
Bitcoin was not called to do this? Then there are too many questions: why p2p? Why crypto? Why in times of crisis? .. Maybe Bitcoin solved at least this problem: “I’ll highlight the main point: "... will allow you to send online payments directly from one side to the other without going through a financial institution ")?
2. Bit-coins and commissions
The answer to the last question above is “no.” At the same time - not twice: first, the miners are increasingly looking towards a large transaction (not without reason, even the aggregators raised the minimum payment to $ 1 or more) with a good commission and this was originally and not exactly p2p. Secondly, if you look at the latest trends of states, say, Russia, USA, Japan (the list can be expanded ), then you can see that, over the next 2-3 years, cryptocurrencies will become just another financial instrument within a common system of such ( commodity and stock exchange, forex, etc.). And at the same time, what is interesting, most of the so-called Bitcoin- “community” assesses positively (if you don’t believe me, look at the graph at least) such news.
The problem is that from 2007-2009. nothing has changed: those who manage capital (not in the sense of conspiracy theory, but in a purely operational sense) have not become better. And one more tool in their hands is another crisis. When will he come? I dont know. But the question for me is not when: the question is why. And the answer is very simple, because greed has prevailed over the mind.
Yes, creating a persona-to-person community is much harder both in time and cost, but what we got today is a parody, which was not worth spending time on.
The main thing that (c) states do is to introduce licensing ... Although, stop: here we see that society is very positive about project licensing and very negatively perceived the refusal to initiate this procedure in favor of, for example, Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust.
I immediately recall Wikileaks (I love alliteration, what to do): I readily believe that D. Assange is applying for a media license in the US in order to fight the US. Is not it so? And if not, then why do we think that bitcoin structures can? In Russia, it is getting closer at all to equating “cryptozoloto” with securities (so that, in fact, 100% intersects with what is written in this article).
For me, this is not a solvable, and most importantly, an artificial paradox.
Something similar was observed with the electronic money market: if you did not walk for a long time, the result is simple - they were turned into another form of bank transfer and firmly tied to banks. Elegant solution. That's just for whom?
3. “Pseudo” is the main set-top box for the Bitcoin currency network.
Bitcoin is not a p2p network: and not even because of the theoretical possibility of combining the efforts of exchanges or miners, but primarily because of the price. In India, Bangladesh and many other countries, people live on $ 1. Someone day, and someone more. Can these people buy at least 1 btc?
Therefore, in this, Bitcoin is also pseudo (as in the fact that it lacks a banking structure as a basis).
Also, Bitcoin is supposedly deprived of inflation: firstly, a limited number of coins alone does not solve anything - we look at gold, which is very small on the surface of the Earth (relative surface again). No one began to think long and came up with ounces for gold, carats for diamonds, satoshi for Bitcoin.
As you know, “with inflation on the same amount of money, after some time, it will be possible to buy less goods and services than before,” and the opposite process is simply called deflation.
And deflation, based on data today, is in Bitcoin: a month ago, it was possible to buy 1 btc less than today. Moreover, inflation in btc is also laid down: at least when withdrawing to Fiat.
However, I will leave the discussion of these problems to economists and professionals and see what happens. And yes - Altcoins also do not count: the system in them is exactly the same. The price is different, but the community is smaller.
4. Conclusion
I know that Bitcoin “supporters” will answer me today: that yes, this is the first step. That all human is imperfect. That many really became richer thanks to Bitcoin and not only to him. What time will tell. That, in the end, I myself want to lower prices in order to earn more and more. And a lot of things in this spirit.
In fact, everything is much simpler: every 100 btc for half a year they give 5,000,000 even in rubles and with the tactics of “do nothing - just record on time”. And growth to $ 1,700 is far from beyond and not the last. The only question is what has changed?
Technology? Yes. Society organization? Formally, yes, in fact, no. But the main thing: has the attitude of people to money changed? Not. This is not a tool, as everyone and everyone writes about, it is a “self-made product”, but such an approach to money inevitably leads to negative consequences, since Without creating anything, but increasing in cost (mining does not count - because even complexity is not proportional to price growth in terms of volume), we always come to the 1930s in the USA, 1990s in developing countries, to 2008m all over the world. Is always. And this is not a well-developed theory of cycles, but only the unwillingness to really change something for a small profit. But only.
To solve problems of any kind, on a global level in the world of money, money cannot be: it is only possible by a system that goes beyond the existing one.
5. Purpose of the article
Very simple , like all others from this cycle , the faster those who believe in real p2p systems understand that Bitcoin died without being born, the sooner we can move to a new system that can solve all the problems indicated (suggestions are in comments). The rest of the article may not give anything, but here I hope, albeit a small, percentage of random hits, which will help increase the overall percentage of supporters of systems outside public authority.
UPD. A little about the technical aspects not from me .
1. Crisis and Bitcoin
As you know, “in 2008, a file describing the protocol and principle of operation of the payment system as a peer-to-peer network was published by a person or group of people under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto ... development began in 2007. In 2009, he completed the development of the protocol and published the code of the client program. The Bitcoin network has been launched. ”
')
And everyone appreciated this hint as transparent: the global financial crisis of 2007-2009. brought to the arena a new instrument with the help of which it was possible to defeat such phenomena as speculation, inflation, and collectively - any manipulations by society with the help of complex economic instruments of the CDO format.
10 years have passed since the start of development, 9 years since the publication of the White Paper, 8 years since launch. And what do we have?
Exactly the same problems: deals on rumors, the game of "perpetual" growth, which is not secured by anything ... However, btc experts will probably object to me and bring a lot of facts "for". But I am always interested in the essence of processes, and not the verbal juggling of their description.
The essence is that, say, in Iceland, Greece, Russia and other countries where the crisis hit people hardest, for those who lost, 99% did not change: they did not become millionaires thanks to Bitcoin, they did not return the housing, and most importantly - in no way could they change the tax burden, which becomes only from year to year due to various tricks of the legislator and the law enforcer.
Bitcoin was not called to do this? Then there are too many questions: why p2p? Why crypto? Why in times of crisis? .. Maybe Bitcoin solved at least this problem: “I’ll highlight the main point: "... will allow you to send online payments directly from one side to the other without going through a financial institution ")?
2. Bit-coins and commissions
The answer to the last question above is “no.” At the same time - not twice: first, the miners are increasingly looking towards a large transaction (not without reason, even the aggregators raised the minimum payment to $ 1 or more) with a good commission and this was originally and not exactly p2p. Secondly, if you look at the latest trends of states, say, Russia, USA, Japan (the list can be expanded ), then you can see that, over the next 2-3 years, cryptocurrencies will become just another financial instrument within a common system of such ( commodity and stock exchange, forex, etc.). And at the same time, what is interesting, most of the so-called Bitcoin- “community” assesses positively (if you don’t believe me, look at the graph at least) such news.
The problem is that from 2007-2009. nothing has changed: those who manage capital (not in the sense of conspiracy theory, but in a purely operational sense) have not become better. And one more tool in their hands is another crisis. When will he come? I dont know. But the question for me is not when: the question is why. And the answer is very simple, because greed has prevailed over the mind.
Yes, creating a persona-to-person community is much harder both in time and cost, but what we got today is a parody, which was not worth spending time on.
The main thing that (c) states do is to introduce licensing ... Although, stop: here we see that society is very positive about project licensing and very negatively perceived the refusal to initiate this procedure in favor of, for example, Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust.
I immediately recall Wikileaks (I love alliteration, what to do): I readily believe that D. Assange is applying for a media license in the US in order to fight the US. Is not it so? And if not, then why do we think that bitcoin structures can? In Russia, it is getting closer at all to equating “cryptozoloto” with securities (so that, in fact, 100% intersects with what is written in this article).
For me, this is not a solvable, and most importantly, an artificial paradox.
Something similar was observed with the electronic money market: if you did not walk for a long time, the result is simple - they were turned into another form of bank transfer and firmly tied to banks. Elegant solution. That's just for whom?
3. “Pseudo” is the main set-top box for the Bitcoin currency network.
Bitcoin is not a p2p network: and not even because of the theoretical possibility of combining the efforts of exchanges or miners, but primarily because of the price. In India, Bangladesh and many other countries, people live on $ 1. Someone day, and someone more. Can these people buy at least 1 btc?
Therefore, in this, Bitcoin is also pseudo (as in the fact that it lacks a banking structure as a basis).
Also, Bitcoin is supposedly deprived of inflation: firstly, a limited number of coins alone does not solve anything - we look at gold, which is very small on the surface of the Earth (relative surface again). No one began to think long and came up with ounces for gold, carats for diamonds, satoshi for Bitcoin.
As you know, “with inflation on the same amount of money, after some time, it will be possible to buy less goods and services than before,” and the opposite process is simply called deflation.
And deflation, based on data today, is in Bitcoin: a month ago, it was possible to buy 1 btc less than today. Moreover, inflation in btc is also laid down: at least when withdrawing to Fiat.
However, I will leave the discussion of these problems to economists and professionals and see what happens. And yes - Altcoins also do not count: the system in them is exactly the same. The price is different, but the community is smaller.
4. Conclusion
I know that Bitcoin “supporters” will answer me today: that yes, this is the first step. That all human is imperfect. That many really became richer thanks to Bitcoin and not only to him. What time will tell. That, in the end, I myself want to lower prices in order to earn more and more. And a lot of things in this spirit.
In fact, everything is much simpler: every 100 btc for half a year they give 5,000,000 even in rubles and with the tactics of “do nothing - just record on time”. And growth to $ 1,700 is far from beyond and not the last. The only question is what has changed?
Technology? Yes. Society organization? Formally, yes, in fact, no. But the main thing: has the attitude of people to money changed? Not. This is not a tool, as everyone and everyone writes about, it is a “self-made product”, but such an approach to money inevitably leads to negative consequences, since Without creating anything, but increasing in cost (mining does not count - because even complexity is not proportional to price growth in terms of volume), we always come to the 1930s in the USA, 1990s in developing countries, to 2008m all over the world. Is always. And this is not a well-developed theory of cycles, but only the unwillingness to really change something for a small profit. But only.
To solve problems of any kind, on a global level in the world of money, money cannot be: it is only possible by a system that goes beyond the existing one.
5. Purpose of the article
Very simple , like all others from this cycle , the faster those who believe in real p2p systems understand that Bitcoin died without being born, the sooner we can move to a new system that can solve all the problems indicated (suggestions are in comments). The rest of the article may not give anything, but here I hope, albeit a small, percentage of random hits, which will help increase the overall percentage of supporters of systems outside public authority.
UPD. A little about the technical aspects not from me .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/403761/
All Articles