Quote from: r0ach on May 12, 2016, 12:26:28 PM

Quote from: JollyTrades on May 12, 2016, 11:07:30 AM

Maybe the task is not to improve bitcoin, but to build something different based on the same technology on which bitcoin depends. This is why it is called Blockchain 2.0, and not Bitcoin 2.0. What is improved is not Bitcoin, but the blockchain technology. This is also why your post is not an answer to my question. "Nobody in altcoins has improved on Bitcoin in any way," you say. Should they? Does Localbitcoins.com improve bitcoin? Does Bitfinex improve bitcoin, or let me ask: Does Bitfinex improve Localbitcoins.com?

Seriously man, you are confused. The buzzword you constantly see spammed by bankers now, "blockchain not Bitcoin", is them trying to co-opt and hijack cryptocurrency. The only purpose of this propaganda is for them to try and create their own permissioned ledger or federated chain, "GoldmansachsCoin" that they create out of thin air and try to sell off to mindless idiots for profit. There is no Nash equilibrium in such a system, thus it has zero value. It provides zero benefits over Bitcoin or the digital fiat already in use and will go nowhere.

Bankers are mad they weren't early adopters of Bitcoin and are now trying to weasel their way out of having to buy at higher prices. That's all there is to this discussion. They will fail in this attempt because their federated chains and permissioned ledgers have no value. There's Antonopolous talking about the same subject:

http://news.bitcoin.com/antonopoulos-banks-blockchain-romance/

Since when has our topic been the bankers? Bankers do what they do. They use blockchain-inspired decentralized ledgers; they hijack bitcoin, etc. etc. What they do has nothing to do with what we can do with blockchain.

yelllowsin,

I'll definitely check out that article. Thank you.

Come-from-Beyond,

Are you the CfB that I know from Nxtforum?