Bitcoin start-up advice needed

[Urbandreamer]

Which is perfectly true - Euros, Dollars etc are not legal tender in the UK and hence you can't force a seller to accept them. They are in that sense valueless in the UK unless you can get someone to exchange them for legal currency in the UK. Russia is currently experiencing that problem in spades since the electronic Dollars and Euros it receives for its oil sales to EU countries according to contract are useless to it because of sanctions (and in particular banking sanctions as converting those US dollars into any other currency requires bookkeeping at US banks) hence Putin's attempt to force payment in Roubles.

We might also consider some Canadian Citizens who were targeted by the state over a disagreement*. Sorry that this link is Dailmail, you can't block bitcoin (without cutting data communication), but you can make it very difficult to use and target those you identify as using it for something that you object to.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ounts.html

'This, in the short-term, is very bad for the banks and our national economy. The more severe implication, however, is that by using the Emergencies Act as financial warfare, it will sow mistrust in both the banking system and the government and the repercussions will be felt for years to come.'

So is it "money" if the government decides that some citizens can use it while others can not?

I didn't really intend defending Bitcoin in particular or crypto in general on this thread. I just have some difficulty with some of the responses to my posts.
Many of which seem to amount to "crypto bad, fiat good". Not even as considered as "some crypto bad, some fiat good"!

*There are of course two sides to that disagreement and here is not a place to debate the sides. What is certain is that the Canadian government tried and for the most part managed to cut off the protestors from funds or personal savings. BritCoin is such a good idea isn't it.... NOT.

[murraypaul]

I didn't really intend defending Bitcoin in particular or crypto in general on this thread. I just have some difficulty with some of the responses to my posts.
Many of which seem to amount to "crypto bad, fiat good". Not even as considered as "some crypto bad, some fiat good"!

Concept and technologies behind crypto could be good.

Actual crypto right now is either just purely for investment/gambling (depending on your point of view), not actual currencies, or outright scams.

As someone in the US/UK/EU (fiat good), there is no benefit to using crypto to actually pay for things. Even Bitcoin enthusiasts no longer view it as useful for that.

[Hornblower]

A 'cycle' usually takes about 4 years...I've been through a full cycle already.

Typically over a cycle people will try & 'diversify' into alt-coins (or sh*tcoins, to give them their proper name) as a way to build a portfolio of crypto.

Then the alts crash hard and cause you pain & force you to learn that Bitcoin is really the only game in town, the rest are scams/have no purpose.

Could you please explain what a 'cycle' is in the above, and why it's a four year one?

Are you really saying that it's just a four-year period where suckers fully appreciate that they've been suckers, and then the whole '4-year cycle' starts again?

If that's the case, then it's nothing but a self-perpetuating pyramid scheme, isn't it?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

The four year cycle refers to the 'halving cycle' programmed into the protocol. There's a new block produced every 10 minutes (give or take). Every 210,000 blocks (which takes 4 years), the block reward for successfully guessing a random number (what the bitcoin miners are all competing to do) is cut in half. The last halving was in May 2020, at that time the reward was cut to 6.25 BTC.

So far in it's 13 year life, there appears to be a correlation between the BTC price and this cycle. Price tends to increase substantially coming up to the halving, presumably as the market remembers just how scarce bitcoins are becoming. In the middle of the 4 years there's often doldrums where the price drifts along for months, or sometimes the price drops sharply. We've had 80% crashes before, the current bear market has seen prices dip 70% from their highs of $69,000 last year. But consistently we get higher highs & higher lows. If you bought & held for 3 years at any point, then you'll be in profit. So far, each 4-year cycle has resulted in a new all-time-high (ATH). This is rational as more people seek to own a provably scarce asset whose stock-to-flow (the ratio of the current stock of a commodity and the flow of new production) programmatically increases over time.

If people bought last year near the ATH for the first time, and are now looking at an over 50% unrealised loss, they can be very despondent. However, if they've been in the market for a while and witnessed a full cycle, people grow to accept the volatility, confident that eventually they'll see another ATH. For example, the stats show that 93% of the BTC sold so far in 2022 had only been held a few months. BTC purchased a few years ago tends to stay unsold.

I hope this explanation has been useful.

H

[Urbandreamer]

As someone in the US/UK/EU (fiat good), there is no benefit to using crypto to actually pay for things. Even Bitcoin enthusiasts no longer view it as useful for that.

You may claim to know all bitcoin enthusiasts, but I wouldn't. I have certainly known at least one who argues for spending Bitcoin, not because it's useful for spending, but because they want it to become useful for spending+.

I do however accept your point that the use case for bitcoin is not great in those jurisdictions. Though arguably there is a use case in countries that suffer QE that they didn't vote for, either using those currencies or currencies pegged to them.

I.E. the likes of the 44 countries meeting in El Salvador in November.
https://voi.id/en/technology/168238/pre ... l-salvador

Nobody in the UK has to get involved with crypto. If you decide to do so, LEARN as much as you can and understand that there ARE scams and things that meet most peoples description of a Ponzi scheme out there. This is not to say that EVERYTHING out there meets those descriptions.

+I'm including off-chain bitcoin transactions like lightning, which is not trust less, in this sentence.

[Itsallaguess]

The four year cycle refers to the 'halving cycle' programmed into the protocol. There's a new block produced every 10 minutes (give or take). Every 210,000 blocks (which takes 4 years), the block reward for successfully guessing a random number (what the bitcoin miners are all competing to do) is cut in half. The last halving was in May 2020, at that time the reward was cut to 6.25 BTC.

So far in it's 13 year life, there appears to be a correlation between the BTC price and this cycle. Price tends to increase substantially coming up to the halving, presumably as the market remembers just how scarce bitcoins are becoming. In the middle of the 4 years there's often doldrums where the price drifts along for months, or sometimes the price drops sharply. We've had 80% crashes before, the current bear market has seen prices dip 70% from their highs of $69,000 last year. But consistently we get higher highs & higher lows. If you bought & held for 3 years at any point, then you'll be in profit.

So far, each 4-year cycle has resulted in a new all-time-high (ATH). This is rational as more people seek to own a provably scarce asset whose stock-to-flow (the ratio of the current stock of a commodity and the flow of new production) programmatically increases over time.

If people bought last year near the ATH for the first time, and are now looking at an over 50% unrealised loss, they can be very despondent. However, if they've been in the market for a while and witnessed a full cycle, people grow to accept the volatility, confident that eventually they'll see another ATH. For example, the stats show that 93% of the BTC sold so far in 2022 had only been held a few months. BTC purchased a few years ago tends to stay unsold.

I hope this explanation has been useful.

Yeah - it's the 'appears to be a correlation' bit that I'm struggling with to be honest.

I'm just not sure that we're looking at anything that can be described as a 'cycle' at this short a time-scale...

On top of that, I'm intrigued by your use of the phrase 'If you bought & held for 3 years at any point, then you'll be in profit', because you seem to be implying that you see BitCoin as an investment.

Yet on this same thread, we're told from a separate BitCoin enthusiast that Bitcoin is 'money', and that 'you don't invest in money'.

And there, I think, is the nub of the issue with BitCoin - it's utility for the 'money' proponents is being slaughtered via volatility due to it's (hoped for, and recently lacking...) utility as an 'investment'...

Then there's others like me who see no long term utility for it in either area...

Interesting times...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Hornblower]

Yeah - it's the 'appears to be a correlation' bit that I'm struggling with to be honest.

I'm just not sure that we're looking at anything that can be described as a 'cycle' at this short a time-scale...

On top of that, I'm intrigued by your use of the phrase 'If you bought & held for 3 years at any point, then you'll be in profit', because you seem to be implying that you see BitCoin as an investment.

Yet on this same thread, we're told from a separate BitCoin enthusiast that Bitcoin is 'money', and that 'you don't invest in money'.

And there, I think, is the nub of the issue with BitCoin - it's utility for the 'money' proponents is being slaughtered via volatility due to it's (hoped for, and recently lacking...) utility as an 'investment'...

Then there's others like me who see no long term utility for it in either area...

Interesting times...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

That's ok I don't need to convince you, I was just explaining the terminology.

Bitcoin can be lots of things to different people. I save in Bitcoin because I believe it will go up over time. It could be classified as a currency, or as a commodity.

You're perhaps misunderstanding the position of Bitcoin advocates. We are saying fiat/political money is broken and Bitcoin is the solution. It is a brand new monetary asset that has gone from zero to $600 billion in 13 years, and if it is to fulfil its mission it'll have to go to many multiples of this yet. This process of monetising is inherently going to cause a lot of volatility along the way. Gold's market cap is just under $12 trillion...that'll be the next target. That'll put 1 BTC at $570,000 or so.

As for the long term utility, I've explained some of the arguments for this in another post on this thread.

H

[Urbandreamer]

That's ok I don't need to convince you, I was just explaining the terminology.

Bitcoin can be lots of things to different people. I save in Bitcoin because I believe it will go up over time. It could be classified as a currency, or as a commodity.

H

Thanks Hornblower, you saved me from posting a somewhat Vitriolic post arguing that you should not be attributed with my opinions.

One wonders if all who follow football agree?

Does Itsallaguess follow Bedford Real for example?
https://www.realbedford.com/
After all doesn't everyone who follows football agree?

Ps, I'm not into football, but I do like the looks of Bedford's "Merch".

[murraypaul]

+I'm including off-chain bitcoin transactions like lightning, which is not trust less, in this sentence.

Ah, that is the difference, I'm not.
If it isn't on the blockchain, it isn't a Bitcoin transaction.

[NotSure]

That's ok I don't need to convince you, I was just explaining the terminology.

Bitcoin can be lots of things to different people. I save in Bitcoin because I believe it will go up over time. It could be classified as a currency, or as a commodity.

H

Thanks Hornblower, you saved me from posting a somewhat Vitriolic post arguing that you should not be attributed with my opinions.

One wonders if all who follow football agree?

Does Itsallaguess follow Bedford Real for example?
https://www.realbedford.com/
After all doesn't everyone who follows football agree?

Ps, I'm not into football, but I do like the looks of Bedford's "Merch".

I'm a crypto sceptic and would not want to be long. But neither would I wish to be short....

There seem to be (too) many views on its future. I have a highly intelligent colleague, around 30 years of age (STEM PhD but practical, not 'academic') who is more enthusiastic (he's made extremely decent profits out of crypto). But even he manages to contradict himself in the course of a couple of verbal paragraphs - one minute crypto is a great (libertarian) thing - money free of government control. The next it's possibly a CIA invention (the blockchain records every transaction, so if you can link a 'wallet' to an individual, you know exactly what they are up to).

There are just too many of these contradictions for me (as described in posts above). Most advocates seem to be either HODL* or traders who love the volatility. Then there are the 'true believers'. Neither of the first two want a stable price - one thinks it will become extremely valuable over time, the other thrives on the instability. So 'I'm out', but watch with no little interest.

(*HODL was, I believe, originally a typo for (buy and) hold on a crypto forum. It has become 'hold on [for] dear life', an attitude of those who believe it will become a key global currency as decadent 'fiat' collapses).

[NotSure]

The four year cycle refers to the 'halving cycle' programmed into the protocol. There's a new block produced every 10 minutes (give or take). Every 210,000 blocks (which takes 4 years), the block reward for successfully guessing a random number (what the bitcoin miners are all competing to do) is cut in half. The last halving was in May 2020, at that time the reward was cut to 6.25 BTC.

So far in it's 13 year life, there appears to be a correlation between the BTC price and this cycle. Price tends to increase substantially coming up to the halving, presumably as the market remembers just how scarce bitcoins are becoming. In the middle of the 4 years there's often doldrums where the price drifts along for months, or sometimes the price drops sharply. We've had 80% crashes before, the current bear market has seen prices dip 70% from their highs of $69,000 last year. But consistently we get higher highs & higher lows. If you bought & held for 3 years at any point, then you'll be in profit..................

Yeah - it's the 'appears to be a correlation' bit that I'm struggling with to be honest.

I'm just not sure that we're looking at anything that can be described as a 'cycle' at this short a time-scale..............

This article here, written over a year ago, does seem to show that the 'halving cycle' is a 'real thing':

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/bitcoin-price-will-go-parabolic-in-2021

WHY THE BITCOIN PRICE WILL BREAK $60,000, CONTINUE GOING PARABOLIC IN 2021

The price of Bitcoin has been consolidating for the last two months, and on-chain analytics and historical precedent suggest that Bitcoin is a caged bull below $60,000, ready for the next leg of parabolic price appreciation.

HALVING CYCLE DYNAMIC: THREE STAGES OF A CYCLE
As previous halving cycles along with the fundamental nature of bitcoin show, the BTC price is set to break $60,000 and go parabolic in 2021.
Source

Many are familiar with the correlation between bitcoin’s supply issuance halving and the price action, but digging deeper can provide context to where bitcoin is in the current cycle, and what the future price action may hold.

The previous two bitcoin bull runs paint quite an interesting picture about the interplay of the protocol’s inelastic supply issuance schedule and the price action of the monetary asset.

To provide context: The Bitcoin network issues new supply every block on a predetermined schedule, with the amount of bitcoin issued by the protocol being reduced every 210,000 blocks, or approximately once every four years (as blocks come in at an average time of once every 10 minutes).......

But everyone knows about 'halvening' now, so I doubt the future is that clear. Either way, it'll be 2025 before we know for sure. If history does repeat, next peak will be $250k or more, so why wait?

[Urbandreamer]

+I'm including off-chain bitcoin transactions like lightning, which is not trust less, in this sentence.

Ah, that is the difference, I'm not.
If it isn't on the blockchain, it isn't a Bitcoin transaction.

Technically you are absolutely right. Which of course why I pointed out any confusion in my post.

For those who don't know, on-chain (bitcoin) transactions do not rely upon trust. While not instant, or cheap, they are totally irreversible currently.
Ether suffered a theft, after huge debate the current coin was forked which reversed that transaction. This has not and currently can not happen "on chain" with bitcoin.

Lightning is a method of trusting others to transmit the "Money". Somewhat like the Knights Templer were back in the days of, dare I say it, the crusades. They transmitted value, taking a cut and obviously you could trust them. Much "Trust" law dates back to then. To some extent that is where our current "Money" has come from. Promissory notes. Of course as has been pointed out I know nothing of money, so check everything that I say.

Anyway getting back to Bitcoin and lightning, or tire 2 networks. The complaints about bitcoin has always been transaction speed and scale. Of course we could argue that Swift (country to country transactions are slow) and before that exchange of gold between countries was slow, So If we were to make Bitcoin the mechanism it would be a improvement in speed.
Scale and speed, well that's delt with by the likes of lightning, unfortunately it does require trust.

Currently I have a bank (that I sort of trust). I transfer funds to another bank (who the account holder trusts). When that back claims that the funds have "arrived" the vendor can act on those funds. OH goodness I'm so glad that the likes of FTX trust their banks. What I have described is me paying to buy Bitcoin! FTX is trusting that they can pursue me through the courts as the "Money" doesn't arrive for days.

Now lightning sort of woks a bit like that and a bit like a bar tab (bare with me I know we are in the UK).

Visa et-al charge for each transaction. Hence the reason that a restaurant will encourage you to add your drinks to the bill at the end.
Lightning aggregates transactions and infrequently does a block chain transaction.
By doing so the nodes reduce the on-chain costs, but you have to trust them as you would your bank or Visa. They are also faster, not needing the consensus agreement of the transaction.

BUT technically you are right. BTW I have yet to make a lightning payment.

Re NoSure, are you sure that he is talking about the same thing that you think that he is?

I certainly would not argue that there is much similarity between Ether and Bitcoin, but those are arguably the basis of others. When you add government crypto currencies (Britcoin, Digital Yuen et-al) into it it's easy to get confused.

In his terms, who holds the ledger/records and can they deny you access. Who allows you to transact, again can they deny that? These are just questions that happen to my mind from my ideology (AcarchoCapitalist).
I would expect a your friend to ask the same questions and the method of implementation might be less important than the goal.
Others like things like Tether which I regard as opaque, and claims to be backed backed by fiat currency.

OH and Filk music was also a typo in a Fandom.
Here Is a song from the genre about investment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4iC7ZL ... nv&index=1

[NotSure]

.....Currently I have a bank (that I sort of trust).....

But one thing about banks is that you do not have rely purely on trust - there is legislation that at at least mitigates the risk when dealing with banks.

....Re NoSure, are you sure that he is talking about the same thing that you think that he is?.....

My apologies, but which part of my post are you referring to here?

[Urbandreamer]

....Re NoSure, are you sure that he is talking about the same thing that you think that he is?.....

My apologies, but which part of my post are you referring to here?

Err, this part.

There seem to be (too) many views on its future. I have a highly intelligent colleague, around 30 years of age (STEM PhD but practical, not 'academic') who is more enthusiastic (he's made extremely decent profits out of crypto). But even he manages to contradict himself in the course of a couple of verbal paragraphs - one minute crypto is a great (libertarian) thing - money free of government control. The next it's possibly a CIA invention (the blockchain records every transaction, so if you can link a 'wallet' to an individual, you know exactly what they are up to).

In this post.
viewtopic.php?p=501802#p501802

Possibly I read to much into you talking about the (libertarian) thing. Some hold strong opinions on such (like me), but don't require or expect others to agree.

Can we agree that there is a significant difference between Bitcoin and a central bank digital currency (that happens to use a blockchain and crypto hashes). You can implement 60% of bitcoin and reject the rest, as many governments are intending to do.

I posted a link previously that didn't explain these facts, but did reference them (by Lyn Alden).

Counter-party risk. Centralization. Single point failure, Trust. Incentives. Ok, I've said enough.
All the above assumes we shall always have a honest and just government, if we are to depend upon our own fiat. So far so good in my lifetime and where I live.

I mentioned a book, and jokes were made. IT IS WORTH READING.
"There but for the will of god go we". Alternatively you can put your faith in the probity of the likes of Boris (not that I have much faith in alternative parties).

[NotSure]

....Re NoSure, are you sure that he is talking about the same thing that you think that he is?.....

My apologies, but which part of my post are you referring to here?

Err, this part.

There seem to be (too) many views on its future. I have a highly intelligent colleague, around 30 years of age (STEM PhD but practical, not 'academic') who is more enthusiastic (he's made extremely decent profits out of crypto). But even he manages to contradict himself in the course of a couple of verbal paragraphs - one minute crypto is a great (libertarian) thing - money free of government control. The next it's possibly a CIA invention (the blockchain records every transaction, so if you can link a 'wallet' to an individual, you know exactly what they are up to).

In this post.
viewtopic.php?p=501802#p501802

Possibly I read to much into you talking about the (libertarian) thing. Some hold strong opinions on such (like me), but don't require or expect others to agree.

Can we agree that there is a significant difference between Bitcoin and a central bank digital currency (that happens to use a blockchain and crypto hashes)......

Of course! I specifically stated "if you can link a 'wallet' to an individual". Keep that secret, you are good. But can you be sure that is really secret? Folk have been rumbled by the authorities when they thought that was the case, but it wasn't.

.... Alternatively you can put your faith in the probity of the likes of Boris (not that I have much faith in alternative parties)....

I think that pounds sterling have been around for a little longer than Johnson. I am also happy to bet they will survive him, but of course I cannot be sure. But will BTC be valuable in 10, 20, 50 years? For all its faults, my money is on LSD. But good luck to those on the other side of that bet! (And of course I am not placing that much faith in Sterling - I hold very little and tend to convert it to less ethereal assets ASAP).

Yes, 'fiat' is iffy (hence myself, and I guess most here, quickly convert it to e.g. equities). But BTC just feels like fiat squared, rather than reducing risk. 'Funny money' vs 'absolutely hilarious'


Edit: it's Friday evening and no offence meant (or taken)

[Urbandreamer]

Of course! I specifically stated "if you can link a 'wallet' to an individual". Keep that secret, you are good. But can you be sure that is really secret? Folk have been rumbled by the authorities when they thought that was the case, but it wasn't.

.... Alternatively you can put your faith in the probity of the likes of Boris (not that I have much faith in alternative parties)....

I think that pounds sterling have been around for a little longer than Johnson. I am also happy to bet they will survive him, but of course I cannot be sure. But will BTC be valuable in 10, 20, 50 years? For all its faults, my money is on LSD. But good luck to those on the other side of that bet! (And of course I am not placing that much faith in Sterling - I hold very little and tend to convert it to less ethereal assets ASAP).

Yes, 'fiat' is iffy (hence myself, and I guess most here, quickly convert it to e.g. equities). But BTC just feels like fiat squared, rather than reducing risk. 'Funny money' vs 'absolutely hilarious'


Edit: it's Friday evening and no offence meant (or taken)

It is indeed Friday and I've had a drink or two, can we pretend that we are mates in a pub (I know that's not the case).

Sure pounds sterling have been around longer than Mr Johnson, BUT not in it's current form. I'm older than Mr Johnson and remember the devaluation hidden in decimalization. I remember my parents remarking that while Mr MacDonald may claim that the pound in your pocket is still the pound in your pocket, it wasn't in buying power. Even before that, the gold peg was dropped.

Please, I know it's not Mr Johnsons fault, but it IS our governments decisions.
My comment about him was a cheap joke that he is and was known to lie before he was elected.

Do you claim that because we use the term pound sterling (I think that meant 1 lb of silver in Anglo-Saxon times) that the gold coin called a sovereign is still worth a "pound"? Obviously not. So what does the word actually mean and did the pound survive?

You say that you have little faith in Sterling, are you surprised that others agree.

FWIW, I hold tiny amounts of Bitcoin, less than the value of my bank current account. This is because I don't trust my knowledge of the subject enough.

Equities are great to invest in, I have a significant amount, but they are not money. I do feel that everyone needs some money/liquidity. What really galls me is the responses that are ill informed and simply state that what small amounts that I have learned must be wrong.

Take your pick of the reasons.
Because all crypto is not fiat.
Because it's all a scam (some is).
Because it's all a Ponzi scheme (while some is it can't be both a scam and a Ponzi scheme, they are different).
Because bitcoin will consume more energy than can be produced.
Because that energy causes very significant C02.
etc.

I do think that those who chose to question crypto on this board, and we do need them, should try to learn a bit about it.

Ps, apparently there are privacy related crypto like Monero. The trouble is that they are so secret that you can't tell if they are a scam or not.
Ie how do you prove that they have any worth with no proof that they are ever used or have a treasury etc.
https://www.getmonero.org/

[Hornblower]

But everyone knows about 'halvening' now, so I doubt the future is that clear. Either way, it'll be 2025 before we know for sure. If history does repeat, next peak will be $250k or more, so why wait?

Yes exactly, once a pattern becomes accepted as consistent by lots of people it'll probably disappear. I don't bother myself with it or any other 'signals', I just purchase a fixed amount every week.

[Itsallaguess]

But BTC just feels like fiat squared, rather than reducing risk.

'Funny money' vs 'absolutely hilarious'

Nailed it...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Itsallaguess]

An interesting read -

UC-Berkeley’s Nicholas Weaver has been studying cryptocurrency for years. He thinks it’s a terrible idea that will end in disaster -

Despite being hyped in expensive Super Bowl ads, cryptocurrency is now having a difficult moment.

As the New York Times reports, “the crypto world went into a full meltdown this week in a sell-off that graphically illustrated the risks of the experimental and unregulated digital currencies.”

One of cryptocurrency’s most vocal skeptics is Nicholas Weaver, senior staff researcher at the International Computer Science Institute and lecturer in the computer science department at UC Berkeley.

Weaver has studied cryptocurrencies for years. Speaking with Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan J. Robinson, Prof. Weaver explains why he views the much-hyped technology with such antipathy.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/why-this-computer-scientist-says-all-cryptocurrency-should-die-in-a-fire

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Mike4]

So far in it's 13 year life, there appears to be a correlation between the BTC price and this cycle. Price tends to increase substantially coming up to the halving, presumably as the market remembers just how scarce bitcoins are becoming.

May I ask a question? (I noticed someone else in the thread suggesting people should do their research before posting in this thread but threads like this ARE my research.) Bitcoin may be becoming scarce but what is the force or motivation preventing the Bitcoin project being copied or replicated in every way by someone to compete directly with Bitcoin? Then there would be twice as many available.

I realise this must be a really naïve question but I"ve yet to see it addressed in anything I've read about Bitcoin.

Thanks...

[GoSeigen]

So far in it's 13 year life, there appears to be a correlation between the BTC price and this cycle. Price tends to increase substantially coming up to the halving, presumably as the market remembers just how scarce bitcoins are becoming.

May I ask a question? (I noticed someone else in the thread suggesting people should do their research before posting in this thread but threads like this ARE my research.) Bitcoin may be becoming scarce but what is the force or motivation preventing the Bitcoin project being copied or replicated in every way by someone to compete directly with Bitcoin? Then there would be twice as many available.

I realise this must be a really naïve question but I"ve yet to see it addressed in anything I've read about Bitcoin.

Thanks...

This is really the same question as mine earlier: what does Hornblower see as the distinction between Bitcoin and the others which he says "are scams/have no purpose."

GS