wildsatchmo

You're conflating (intentionally?) Bitcoin the system vs Bitcoin Script. Nobody claims the Script in a vacuum is Turing complete which is important and by design, including the article which clearly says "Each step in running the Turing machine is triggered by a Bitcoin transaction."

Others have explained this too, so forgive me if your account age combined with Greg's precense, your arguments style, and the very peculiar coincidence that your handle matches a known BSV proponent on Reddit who Greg just happened to tag in connection with this post suggest you are being disingenuous.

Twetch is an experiment in exactly this. Pay to like, comment, "branch" as they call it (retweet). pow.market is another fascinating experiment using proof of work as the currency that could be integrated into these platforms. ctzn.network is another take but no payments going on there. "Karma as a token" is what I think of based on your description and it's really cool. I think in the next couple of years there will be a lot more experimentation in this area too. It's a perfect storm of censorship, bots, and fake news that are encouraging more experiments now. There are others I'm aware of that are not yet public that I'm most excited about though. It's definitely happening.

I'm here collecting downvotes in exchange for hard truths.

Could have paid to put the data on chain for less than the cost to settle the purchase of this luxurious immutable broken link. BSV is much better low level technology for this kind of thing. Now shower me with your hatred before I give you more sound reasons it is clearly superior.

You can't draw attention to it. That might raise even more questions about the net effectiveness of continued lockdowns.

Even if I did provide you some report showing banks use more than Bitcoin (which is still true for now) it's only a fraction of the big picture. Although banks are a good example of this effect, Bitcoin doesn't JUST improve banking. As this plays out, mining infrastructure provides a shared resource that can be used by MILLIONS of companies, among which are banks who manage massive datacenters requiring humans and their associated energy consumption, the cost for audits, compliance, card readers, and other things that Bitcoin makes effortless. Surely unlocking efficiency offsets power consumption, and at scale the efficiency improvements can be astronomical. An accurate figure on this probably does not even exist, especially considering the lack of imagination with respect to Bitcoin use-cases. Not to mention the biggest energy consumers are also the best in the world at reducing their consumption out of competitive necessity.

I agree. I think makes them more efficient, and less important for some of their common use-cases. All of that mining equipment is infrastructure they don't need.

Funny nobody complains about the energy consumed by actual banks and other services Bitcoin would replace, which is much higher. In those circumstances they can understand it's not a waste at all, but a cost of providing a valuable service.

I don't think POS is an adequate replacement. POW was an intentional design choice because of the highly competitive environment that it creates.

Bitcoin XT is a an old client, not a chain.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a group of developers, not a chain.

Bitcoin Gold doesn't even use the same hash algo, is an unrelated airdrop.

There are only 3 sha256 Bitcoin forks. BTC, BCH, BSV

BTC ticker symbol does not mean it is "the original", it means it was most popular among exchanges at the time of the fork.

BCH was a demonstration of Bitcoin's resilience. When devs tried to alter the protocol in a way that was very controversial, the network forked.

BCH most closely resembled Bitcoin as defined by its' white-paper at that time.

Eventually BCH devs also made controversial changes, and guess what? Bitcoin forked again. Shocker. Bitcoin survives by design.

What I find fascinating is how many people think fundamentally altering it should be acceptable, even though it is the most obvious attack vector.

Exactly. Price aside, the growth is insane. Things are being built. Merchants are coming back online. Within a few months the sentiment will start to change for BCH.

> How? By simply eliminating intermediaries. A middle man always takes a cut somehow. If you can eliminate him, both parties can enjoy better rates. Here are some non vague ways blockchains can help real problems:

- What if a kind of youtube existed where advertisers paid content creators directly instead of youtube taking a large percentage? And it was censorship resistant. - What if we could build app stores that don't take a 30-50% cut. - How about an entire p2p marketplace without fees like ebay? openbazaar.org - What about getting paid for things that are impossible right now because of CC tx fees? This unlocks microtransactions & an entire attention economy (see yours.org, steemit.com, more incoming) - How about p2p digital rights management to allow artists to keep more of their income? Several in the works. - How about any service that exists to keep records? I would love to see the day Pacer was replaced by a blockchain. - What if a kind of reddit could exist without centrally moderated channels and armies of fake users? - What if p2p rented data storage could be a fraction of the price of dropbox without selling your data? - What if you could rent computing power in a p2p fashion? - What if network/VPN rules could be tokenized in the hardware and network access could be metered and charged per minute in crypto? - What if you could receive payroll as a minute by minute stream? - What if the lottery was provably fair and 1000 times less of a ripoff? - What if we could replace obviously flawed political polling with prediction markets?

I could write this list all day. Not vague handwaving, all of these things are being worked on or already exist.

If you think the desire for sound money is weird you'll never understand why we need bitcoin. The hard core gold bugs in the Libertarian forums circa 2008 STILL don't trust bitcoin because they can't hold it in their hand. You think these are the folks that invented it? They're typically not computer savvy in the least and would rather invest in canned food with a 90 year shelf life. In that diverse group there were a small subset of cryptography nerds who had worked on several digital money theories and iterations before actually inventing bitcoin. Those people knew a lot about finance, economics, politics, etc. People like to flatten groups into one personality and call them weird or fringe to auto-win an argument when the reality is a bit more complicated than that. I'll remind you that the early days of the internet attracted some weird characters too. Doesn't mean they were wrong to be excited, and it doesn't mean the people who actually invented it wore spiked collars and combat boots either.

This one makes me a little sad. I was very into bitcoin and blockchain ideas early on and the ICO fever has poisoned the well a bit. The money is attracting the types you're describing but IMO the only people who knew anything about BTC in the early days were exactly the kinds of people who knew a lot about about economics, cryptography, finance, business, government, politics, and philosophy. It seems obvious to me that the intersection of these things informed bitcoin's core design concepts. Some people think the system we have now is deeply flawed and needs a redesign, others don't. Those who don't might find it hard to see the utility in bitcoin.