Quote from: Killerpotleaf on March 11, 2017, 07:29:22 PM

Quote from: r0ach on March 11, 2017, 07:24:23 PM

Quote from: Elwar on March 11, 2017, 03:28:32 PM

One of the critiques was from Professor Bitcorn

That guy doesn't seem to really know much about the technicals or fundamentals of bitcoin, but I actually agree with the ETF decision for a few reasons. Bitcoin has no transaction finality or even eventual consistency since technically the entire chain can be re-written, and in order to make any claim of being decentralized (unlike Vitalikcoin), that's the way it has to be designed; so bitcoin does not, and probably never will, fit into any existing legal system.

thats almost like saying company XYZ can't be listed because half of the board can potentially leave to start a competing company, isn't it?

No, the term "consensus" is mostly a common shared delusion that can change into something completely different at any given time, and such a circumstance is not really compatible with a binary outcome legal system. Bitcoin might also have to become inflationary to maintain any form of convergence after the block reward is gone, so whatever attributes were sold to ETF clients would be on false claims due to bitcoin still evolving as well. If inflation is required, bitcoin would probably also fork off into all kinds of different chains at that point, from proof of stake to who knows what else.

It is not really written in stone that bitcoin is even a valid system yet, or that it won't be completely different and resemble nothing like how it started. An ETF is kind of for a finished product without all the uncertainty - another reason I consider bitcoin a currency and not money. Money doesn't fork. I don't have to worry about Roger Ver sneaking into my silver or gold coins and forking them into...cheetos or some other unrecognizable molecular structure.