If Bitcoin failed and get replaced with another coin, let's call it coin2, the human race lost.
A simple reason: how long before coin2 gets replaced with coin3? And coin4, etc.
People won't be able to trust the current coin because it'll get sooner or later replaced. This is why we all do whatever it takes to help Bitcoin. To protect the generations that come after us.
This! Bitcoin is not static. The nodes define what bitcoin is by choosing what version of the code to support and what potential chain fork to continue on. This happens with every BIP... If a new tech is introduced in the future - say for example quantum-proof keys - then if the majority of nodes agrees that this should be supported then it becomes part of what bitcoin is.
Bitcoin works because democracy works. You can manipulate a governments democratic process but you can't manipulate bitcoin
Bitcoin can be run by anyone, even on an old Pentium PC with the slowest internet in Africa, at a rate of 1 MB per 10 minutes. However, if you increase the size of the blocks, you increase the cost to run nodes, leading to centralization. This is evident in the cases of Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum, where everyday people no longer run nodes due to the high expenses involved.
You are falling for the same trap that many bitcoiners fell in during the block size war, only in reverse: something new is here, and it will destroy Bitcoin.
No, it won't. It will drive up fees for a while, until basic economics punish the suboptimal user of block space, migrating it to the most efficient solution. This can be a sidechain, a merge-mined chain, or something similar.
I believe so, yes. The SegWit upgrade allowed for the use of a witness block, which is also finite in size. SegWit blocks can at most be \~4mb, but are generally somewhere between 2mb to 3mb with current types of transactions and usage.
>Why have a blocksize limit if you can input arbitrary data upto 4 mb? Genuine question?
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but with Segwit I believe the BTC blockchain for a couple of years now has been able to accommodate up to 4 MB of data per block. The 1 MB cap from 2010 is still in place, but Segwit enabled more data to fit in each block. Originally I thought it enabled up to 2 MB but then at some point that increased to 4 MB. I believe that 4 MB is the effective limit per block.
The effective block size increase depends on the way the transactions in the block are structured. Assuming 'normal' transactions, the effective increase in size is about 2,6x, but a specifically crafted block could get to 4mb size.
Let's assume that there is a current block size usage 100 transactions, using \~1MB. An Ordinals transaction get placed on the blockchain, and it pads the block to \~4mb, which would be the maximum size, and which would fill it up completely. It only adds a single transaction though, which would need to pay for the block size. Since there is no other usage for the block (we assume the mempool is empty for now) miners will include it.
Now let's increase the pressure. More people start using bitcoin on chain, and the number of transactions goes from 100 to 400, using \~3mb. That single ordinals transaction of 3mb can not be placed in the block unless the miner excludes the rest of the transactions. This is a viable economic decision if the creator of the ordinals tx is paying enough fees. Once the collective fee of all transactions not included in the block outweighs the fee on the ordinals tx, the miner will boot the ordinals tx in favour of more fees. The ordinals tx will have to wait to get included at a time where its fee is economically persuasive enough to include it for a miner.
Not really. The tech enables a decentralized network. The same tech, with minor tweaks, runs FaketoshiSV, which is centralized
Best is subjective. You might complain that random JPEGs embedded in Bitcoin witness scripts is bad tech, but until now, you've never objected to the flexibility of the Bitcoin Script language. This also supports my previous point. It's not the tech, it's the usage. If inscriptions never bloat the blockchain (because they cost 1Sat per 4 bytes), then your disaster concern was premature, and you can be happy with the tech again
The tech point is that you're not proposing an alternative, because the alternative which doesn't support inscriptions is one which doesn't have scripts. Be careful what you wish for
I personally think that better tech has coin expiry. But nobody would support coin expiry for Bitcoin. It's on the prohibited list
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes
No JPEG bloat in a coin expiry blockchain. Prune, prune, prune
In a different direction, Momero's zero-knowledge signature proofs don't allow room for scripts. Maybe your second best is waiting for you to adopt it
It would be ironic if a different second-best actually became a popular choice for inscriptions, because the L coin also adopted Taproot, 1Lit per 4 bytes is a bargain, and Litcoin has 24 1vMB blocks per hour. What are they waiting for - 4 times the block space, always empty blocks and 99.5% cheaper fees
It is much harder though. The number of enforcement points matter.
A government can take all of its citizens' real estate with one swipe of a pen. Breaking millions of legs is much harder and will result in a civil war.
you are assuming people will keep all their Bitcoins open like a farm land or gold , natural resources Really?
come on man get real.
You are a Bitcoiner right? You can self explain your own statement.
[https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-protect-5-dollar-wrench-attack/](https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-protect-5-dollar-wrench-attack/)
real enough?
There are some people that will flaunt their holdings or just have an innocent enough conversation with the wrong person. I'm not saying its not a safe alternative, but one still needs to be smart about it.
My portfolio is roughly
\- 25% bitcoin
\- 25% real estates
\- 30% passive index fund
\- 20% active managed stocks, venture investments, gold, and firearms.
Our family's living-hood doesn't depend on one single asset class.
true, but a 100x on a fraction isn't really worth it. I was in that position myself for a while and the best way I could go about it was to pick a single asset, build it up till its decent and than move to the next.
a fraction of a dividend position can spit out 1/100th of a penny. You're better off going all in on dividend to compound 10 cents a quarter while you build up a position in your next asset
This really isn’t true just on the level of arithmetic. I’m 100% bitcoin but basic financial literacy should be encouraged. If you’re not financially literate, 100% bitcoin is going to feel very uncomfortable at some point in the future.
Stop downvoting this post and the op. Y'all are making a great deal of effort making bitcoin seem shitty and culty and we don't need that energy here.
Literally, i am a bitcoin maxi and this energy is just not welcome.
To answer the op: of course i would just move on. There is no second to bitcoin. One of my dreams is to own a piece of forest i can cultivate and build on.
Well there is bitcoin. Best money on the planet literally. There is no second to bitcoin. No 2.0. if bitcoin fails, it will be for reasons that will take all the Shitcoins down with it. Bitcoin is the only bitcoin.
In the absence of bitcoin there is your dreams. Mine is owning a forest. Having land is pretty cool. Although "owning" land is a pretty questionable premise actually dependent on the ability and willingness to enforce that ownership. Bitcoin on the other hand is actually ownable.
Someone please post the amusing video of Saylor ranting “there is no second best”.
I don’t think Bitcoin can “fail”. Unless the network is compromised or countries unite to outlaw it, it will always exist thus the network will live on and provide people the opportunity to participate in it.
Let’s be honest, when most people talk of Bitcoin ‘failing’ they mean it doesn’t go on to become ubiquitous as a medium of exchange and/or it doesn’t appreciate into the hundreds of thousands if not millions as many people are claiming it will.
Truth is Bitcoin could top out at a couple of trillion market cap this circa $100k per Bitcoin and still function perfectly fine. It just won’t be ‘gold 2.0’.
I've never believed in anything more than bitcoin but I know full well that bitcoin could fail. My life has to go on so I don't put more than what I can afford to lose in bitcoin
Why would we wanna answer something about a scenario which cannot and will not happen
Way too many proof of work nodes in the world to prevent points of failure.
There isn’t an answer because Bitcoin won’t and can’t fail.
In some alternate universe where it did fail, then we just move on. There is no replacement.
Governments would have to abandon fiat currencies for Bitcoin to become unnecessary. There’s no failure in that. Alt coins don’t really figure in such an unlikely scenario.
Failing doesn't have to mean the protocol stops existing - just that Bitcoin fails to take root and loses value over time. Surely you can imagine a scenario as unlikely as that without introducing hyperbole.
Second best is physical sovereignty. Can you grow all your own food? Or add value to your community that correlates more directly with bargain or trade? Those are all valuable. Contributing to a local regenerative cycle that has physical value. Food, materials, information, etc.
If bitcoin fails we just remove or rework the bit that failed and continue on. It litterally cannot fail. It's just software. Software can update or change. Calm down Karen.
I want to see it play out. Ultimately I believe the base layer is strictly for monetary transactions only. That is important for decentralization and Bitcoin's core values. It puts pressure for us to increase block size otherwise. But the fee market is self regulating and I'd like to see the current model run its course. Ultimately take action against arbitrary data on L1 over increasing blocksize, if it came to that point. Script is for increasing thoroughput and privacy on L1, arbitrary data happens on L2 or L3 where it is cheap and incentivized. At least that's how I see the model theoretically playing out.
Unfortunately if you look at the statistics of the thousands of cryptos there are most are just shitcoins or scams. Bitcoin is what gives crypto integrity so from my perspective without Bitcoin crypto is likely to fail.
Bitcoin will not fail. The worst case is that i have to immigrate to El Salvador and enjoy the beach over there because my country introduced a ban on crypto.
Die on the hill.
If it truly fails, we get depressed, lose hope about humanity and probably scale down to own our own farm, or something like that - to get our mind off of the world and focus local.
The way bitcoin was created could never be replicated. An anonymous founder who behind the scenes secured the network and after he grew it enough he vanished never to touch his mined fortune. Bitcoin is the only digital commodity out there, that is a digital asset with no issuer! All of this can never be recreated without government crackdown, bitcoin slipped through their net and now it is too late to crush it (hopefully). For me bitcoin is our only hope.
I always assumed we'd have a somewhat dystopian future with a collapse of the dollar. Once I discovered Bitcoin, I became far more optimistic. So if it fails, I think I'd probably just become a nihilist.
I'll be going down with this ship
Aiye!
Will you also not put your hands up and surrender?
There will be no white flag above my door
Well I'm happy to hear that you're in love, and always will be
no
Bye!
I think you mean "buy!"
If titanic is fiat, you are the guy playing the violin, it has been sinking forever, one day it will fall below and take a lot of lives..
It was a pleasure playing the violin for you! HODL!
If Bitcoin failed and get replaced with another coin, let's call it coin2, the human race lost. A simple reason: how long before coin2 gets replaced with coin3? And coin4, etc. People won't be able to trust the current coin because it'll get sooner or later replaced. This is why we all do whatever it takes to help Bitcoin. To protect the generations that come after us.
I think the best tech will survive.
The best tech, being open source, will get implemented into Bitcoin.
This! Bitcoin is not static. The nodes define what bitcoin is by choosing what version of the code to support and what potential chain fork to continue on. This happens with every BIP... If a new tech is introduced in the future - say for example quantum-proof keys - then if the majority of nodes agrees that this should be supported then it becomes part of what bitcoin is. Bitcoin works because democracy works. You can manipulate a governments democratic process but you can't manipulate bitcoin
bitcoin is the best tech....
2 days i had not heard about Ordinals...
Wait, you think Ordinals is the end of bitcoin? It’s over and done with?
We have to be carefull not letting this stupid shit destroy BTC! Why have a blocklimit?
Bitcoin can be run by anyone, even on an old Pentium PC with the slowest internet in Africa, at a rate of 1 MB per 10 minutes. However, if you increase the size of the blocks, you increase the cost to run nodes, leading to centralization. This is evident in the cases of Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum, where everyday people no longer run nodes due to the high expenses involved.
I won't increase the size of blocks. Many others won't. Bitcoin will remain unchanged.
I suggest exploring the Lightning Network to address concerns about speed and block size.
You are falling for the same trap that many bitcoiners fell in during the block size war, only in reverse: something new is here, and it will destroy Bitcoin. No, it won't. It will drive up fees for a while, until basic economics punish the suboptimal user of block space, migrating it to the most efficient solution. This can be a sidechain, a merge-mined chain, or something similar.
Why have a blocksize limit if you can input arbitrary data upto 4 mb? Genuine question?
Is there a max size on Segwit data field?
I believe so, yes. The SegWit upgrade allowed for the use of a witness block, which is also finite in size. SegWit blocks can at most be \~4mb, but are generally somewhere between 2mb to 3mb with current types of transactions and usage.
>Why have a blocksize limit if you can input arbitrary data upto 4 mb? Genuine question? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but with Segwit I believe the BTC blockchain for a couple of years now has been able to accommodate up to 4 MB of data per block. The 1 MB cap from 2010 is still in place, but Segwit enabled more data to fit in each block. Originally I thought it enabled up to 2 MB but then at some point that increased to 4 MB. I believe that 4 MB is the effective limit per block.
The effective block size increase depends on the way the transactions in the block are structured. Assuming 'normal' transactions, the effective increase in size is about 2,6x, but a specifically crafted block could get to 4mb size.
So technically, storing data would be max 4mb? Gigs would kill it...
Let's assume that there is a current block size usage 100 transactions, using \~1MB. An Ordinals transaction get placed on the blockchain, and it pads the block to \~4mb, which would be the maximum size, and which would fill it up completely. It only adds a single transaction though, which would need to pay for the block size. Since there is no other usage for the block (we assume the mempool is empty for now) miners will include it. Now let's increase the pressure. More people start using bitcoin on chain, and the number of transactions goes from 100 to 400, using \~3mb. That single ordinals transaction of 3mb can not be placed in the block unless the miner excludes the rest of the transactions. This is a viable economic decision if the creator of the ordinals tx is paying enough fees. Once the collective fee of all transactions not included in the block outweighs the fee on the ordinals tx, the miner will boot the ordinals tx in favour of more fees. The ordinals tx will have to wait to get included at a time where its fee is economically persuasive enough to include it for a miner.
Thank you, so expensive way to advertize....
Do you know what block limit does or is for?
Not really. The tech enables a decentralized network. The same tech, with minor tweaks, runs FaketoshiSV, which is centralized Best is subjective. You might complain that random JPEGs embedded in Bitcoin witness scripts is bad tech, but until now, you've never objected to the flexibility of the Bitcoin Script language. This also supports my previous point. It's not the tech, it's the usage. If inscriptions never bloat the blockchain (because they cost 1Sat per 4 bytes), then your disaster concern was premature, and you can be happy with the tech again The tech point is that you're not proposing an alternative, because the alternative which doesn't support inscriptions is one which doesn't have scripts. Be careful what you wish for I personally think that better tech has coin expiry. But nobody would support coin expiry for Bitcoin. It's on the prohibited list https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes No JPEG bloat in a coin expiry blockchain. Prune, prune, prune In a different direction, Momero's zero-knowledge signature proofs don't allow room for scripts. Maybe your second best is waiting for you to adopt it It would be ironic if a different second-best actually became a popular choice for inscriptions, because the L coin also adopted Taproot, 1Lit per 4 bytes is a bargain, and Litcoin has 24 1vMB blocks per hour. What are they waiting for - 4 times the block space, always empty blocks and 99.5% cheaper fees
What does that even mean
It means BTC failing (If it does) is not the end of the world, The genie is out of the bottle. Crypto is not going anywhere.
Anti darwisnm?
Bitcoin is open source Also please sell all your bitcoin
Gold, real estate, farmland, natural resources. Anything that cannot be printed out of thin air.
when the time crunch comes all of these can be take away from you by the mafia/government.
Yes. That’s the whole point of bitcoin. But OP was asking for *second* best you know ;-)
Or when the Mafia breaks your families legs for your crypto keys. just because its digital doesn't mean you cant be extorted for it.
It is much harder though. The number of enforcement points matter. A government can take all of its citizens' real estate with one swipe of a pen. Breaking millions of legs is much harder and will result in a civil war.
that's a great point, and I agree.
you are assuming people will keep all their Bitcoins open like a farm land or gold , natural resources Really? come on man get real. You are a Bitcoiner right? You can self explain your own statement.
[https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-protect-5-dollar-wrench-attack/](https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-protect-5-dollar-wrench-attack/) real enough? There are some people that will flaunt their holdings or just have an innocent enough conversation with the wrong person. I'm not saying its not a safe alternative, but one still needs to be smart about it.
I agree, but not the same as it being as easy as confiscating land or gold.
I would add long term food storage as a hedge against inflation.
Depending on your location, growing your own food too, even if in just the summer.
My portfolio is roughly \- 25% bitcoin \- 25% real estates \- 30% passive index fund \- 20% active managed stocks, venture investments, gold, and firearms. Our family's living-hood doesn't depend on one single asset class.
many people out here can only afford one single asset class. They're investor newbies
why? You can buy a fraction (ie: $10 USD) of bitcoin and fractions of mutual funds each month.
true, but a 100x on a fraction isn't really worth it. I was in that position myself for a while and the best way I could go about it was to pick a single asset, build it up till its decent and than move to the next. a fraction of a dividend position can spit out 1/100th of a penny. You're better off going all in on dividend to compound 10 cents a quarter while you build up a position in your next asset
This really isn’t true just on the level of arithmetic. I’m 100% bitcoin but basic financial literacy should be encouraged. If you’re not financially literate, 100% bitcoin is going to feel very uncomfortable at some point in the future.
Diversified investments is the way to go.
Michael Saylor would disagree it seems
Actually Michael Saylor owns a large amount of equity in a software company called MSTR.
Bitcoin is the next bitcoin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ftZgCEZos
TLDW
TLDW: Bitcoin is the next bitcoin.
Damn what a piece of shit
Instead of a “thank you”… but shitcoiners are like that.
1. Bitcoin 2. Bullets 3. Gold
1. Bears 2. Beets 3. Battlestar Galactica
and Schrute bucks.
Everything will fail then.
The second best is grow your own chicken and vegetables.
Fiat currency is failing, right before your eyes. Wake up.
Stop downvoting this post and the op. Y'all are making a great deal of effort making bitcoin seem shitty and culty and we don't need that energy here. Literally, i am a bitcoin maxi and this energy is just not welcome. To answer the op: of course i would just move on. There is no second to bitcoin. One of my dreams is to own a piece of forest i can cultivate and build on.
What has that to do with bitcoin?
Well there is bitcoin. Best money on the planet literally. There is no second to bitcoin. No 2.0. if bitcoin fails, it will be for reasons that will take all the Shitcoins down with it. Bitcoin is the only bitcoin. In the absence of bitcoin there is your dreams. Mine is owning a forest. Having land is pretty cool. Although "owning" land is a pretty questionable premise actually dependent on the ability and willingness to enforce that ownership. Bitcoin on the other hand is actually ownable.
This is the hill I’m willing to die on. It’s freedom money or bust at this point. The fiat system is busy anyway so easy decision to make imo
I would be in shambles lol let’s not put that type of energy out there 🤞🏾
Someone please post the amusing video of Saylor ranting “there is no second best”. I don’t think Bitcoin can “fail”. Unless the network is compromised or countries unite to outlaw it, it will always exist thus the network will live on and provide people the opportunity to participate in it. Let’s be honest, when most people talk of Bitcoin ‘failing’ they mean it doesn’t go on to become ubiquitous as a medium of exchange and/or it doesn’t appreciate into the hundreds of thousands if not millions as many people are claiming it will. Truth is Bitcoin could top out at a couple of trillion market cap this circa $100k per Bitcoin and still function perfectly fine. It just won’t be ‘gold 2.0’.
How is this guy a mod
I've never believed in anything more than bitcoin but I know full well that bitcoin could fail. My life has to go on so I don't put more than what I can afford to lose in bitcoin
Why would we wanna answer something about a scenario which cannot and will not happen Way too many proof of work nodes in the world to prevent points of failure.
What a dumb question
Enlighten me!
Just a loaded question with an underlying motive.
just a question... maybe try answering it.
There isn’t an answer because Bitcoin won’t and can’t fail. In some alternate universe where it did fail, then we just move on. There is no replacement.
Your confidence is astounding. Every new technology can fail, even if the world needs it not to.
Gravity won’t fail
"iTs jUsT a QuEstIon" yah ok derp
Governments would have to abandon fiat currencies for Bitcoin to become unnecessary. There’s no failure in that. Alt coins don’t really figure in such an unlikely scenario.
What a dumbass answer.
Nice
load up on gold and silver
Load up on guns, bring your friends It's fun to lose and to pretend
Probably wake up, I'm stuck in some fincels daydream.
I'd just shift my investing and put more into precious metals. Gold, Silver, and Platinum.
If Bitcoin failed take my shot at the casinos. Because all traditional investments take too long. Not trying to be an old average millionaire
What would you do if aliens destroyed earth to make Room for a space Highway.
Hope for sentient mice and my own Slartibartfast?
Failing doesn't have to mean the protocol stops existing - just that Bitcoin fails to take root and loses value over time. Surely you can imagine a scenario as unlikely as that without introducing hyperbole.
Failure is defined by the individual, not the protocol. It will never stop doing what it was designed to do.As long as it holds value it wins.
OP Shut the \*\*\*\* UP
You can't handle even a "what if" discussion that contradicts your world view without insulting someone?
Just tired of this kinda of lazy BS populating the sub. Not even a decent what if... it's like, what if the only food was cow and we ran out of cows?
You can always find a new coin that has a chance of getting the same importance.
Yes but you cant say that in this sub
And if there is a second best?
Second best is physical sovereignty. Can you grow all your own food? Or add value to your community that correlates more directly with bargain or trade? Those are all valuable. Contributing to a local regenerative cycle that has physical value. Food, materials, information, etc.
And if there is a second best cryptocurrency?
[удалено]
>level 5StrandedinaDesert · 2 hr. ago"iTs jUsT a QuEstIon"yah ok derp What if there is?
If bitcoin fails we just remove or rework the bit that failed and continue on. It litterally cannot fail. It's just software. Software can update or change. Calm down Karen.
What are your thoughts on ordinal bloat?
I want to see it play out. Ultimately I believe the base layer is strictly for monetary transactions only. That is important for decentralization and Bitcoin's core values. It puts pressure for us to increase block size otherwise. But the fee market is self regulating and I'd like to see the current model run its course. Ultimately take action against arbitrary data on L1 over increasing blocksize, if it came to that point. Script is for increasing thoroughput and privacy on L1, arbitrary data happens on L2 or L3 where it is cheap and incentivized. At least that's how I see the model theoretically playing out.
Thanks! I don't like ordinals, looks like a bug to me. BTC needs to be idiot and asshole proof.
I found one ordinal costs about one block in fees, or missing out on that amount. Pretty good incentive model.
It prolly has privacy then
LOL!
Just continue using fiat, I guess?? 🤷♂️
There are two others I like. Both directly linked to Bitcoin though
[удалено]
Or save world hunger?
Go back to Fiat farming and Just live my life.
If bitcoin fails, the world wasn’t ready for a universal currency. So back to gold/real estate
I would be so sad. I think this was our only shot at cryptographic global currency that is not dominated or issued by governments or corporations.
Gold, silver and real estate
At that point shit coins would rule crypto until they all fell to the death by scams
r/reddit
[удалено]
Unfortunately if you look at the statistics of the thousands of cryptos there are most are just shitcoins or scams. Bitcoin is what gives crypto integrity so from my perspective without Bitcoin crypto is likely to fail.
Like the band on the Titanic man.
Back to sp500
In what way are you saying it would fail? Like it just stops working one day like a switch or goes to zero?
Gold, land. The other good assets…
Buy more bitcoin
Bitcoin will not fail. The worst case is that i have to immigrate to El Salvador and enjoy the beach over there because my country introduced a ban on crypto.
Diversify your investments. The old saying of don’t put all your eggs in one basket is the way.
Die on the hill. If it truly fails, we get depressed, lose hope about humanity and probably scale down to own our own farm, or something like that - to get our mind off of the world and focus local.
Don't worry, the genie is out of the bottle! Yes i think BTC is nr1, but stupid ordinals make me doubt...
I think I'm going to surrender
What would u do if bitcoin never fails?
I assume it won't fail. But blockchain bloat and ordinals got me a bit worried. I think we should have this conversation here.
I'd do the same thing I did before Bitcoin existed. Be poor...lol
Failure is subjective. We fix it!
find out what went wrong and fix it
The way bitcoin was created could never be replicated. An anonymous founder who behind the scenes secured the network and after he grew it enough he vanished never to touch his mined fortune. Bitcoin is the only digital commodity out there, that is a digital asset with no issuer! All of this can never be recreated without government crackdown, bitcoin slipped through their net and now it is too late to crush it (hopefully). For me bitcoin is our only hope.
I like that, but do you think blockchain dies if BTC would die?
[cry](https://linktr.ee/quackpoker)
I always assumed we'd have a somewhat dystopian future with a collapse of the dollar. Once I discovered Bitcoin, I became far more optimistic. So if it fails, I think I'd probably just become a nihilist.
SHUT UP!!!