Home
News
- Bitcoin has been misunderstood by several globally
- The Bitcoin block size controversy has remained a controversial issue since the the coin has been established
- The increment in block size could help reduce the soaring transaction costs on the Bitcoin blockchain
- Bitcoin is inevitable like the Internet
Bitcoin is currently the largest cryptocurrency in terms of market cap, as per CoinMarketCap. An anonymous person named Satoshi Nakamoto entered with a 8-page Bitcoin whitepaper in 2009, which was the first time the world found the logic behind the blockchain technology. The concept behind the Bitcoin network was believed by few, and no one expected that one day the coin would make every traditional investment look brainless.
Bitcoin is the world’s most famous crypto asset, which has gained mainstream adoption. On mainstream social media platforms like Twitter, the idea is trending almost every day. More people are getting into this BTC thing, and learning about the technology. Still, in the current scenario many globally have missed the actual point of its creation.
Real idea behind the creation of Bitcoin
Individuals globally are thinking that the soaring price of Bitcoin is the end. But the main issue is that Bitcoin is not a get-rich-quick scheme. The coin designed by Satoshi Nakamoto has a different perspective behind it. The coin has the power to change the traditional foundation of society. Our current economy is entirely made up of borders. Notably, Bitcoin has no such sort of borders.
It is essential to understand that Bitcoin makes the world free of borders. Everyone is free to look, anyone can acquire BTC with no hurdles. And the most important part is the coin allows its users to transact globally.
BTC block size is fixed at 1MB
Bitcoin block size is not unlimited and it is only one megabyte currently. Many in the cryptosphere were concerned why several attempts of increasing the Bitcoin block size failed and remained 1MB only. Developers including Gavin, Andersen, Jeff Garzik, and Mike Hearn have first appealed to increase the Bitcoin block size in 2011. However, the Bitcoin block size was put in place to limit the possibility that someone could cheaply spam the blockchain.
Indeed, the spam control mechanism persists in the form of the Bitcoin block size limit, which ultimately limits the transactions per second to nearly three. However, every effort of the developers to scale the blockchain was observed failing for various reasons. Still, after more than 10 years of Bitcoin’s establishment, the Bitcoin block size issue that those developers were seeking to accomplish needs fixing. However, many developers working on Bitcoin’s main GitHub repository have already given up trying for a hard fork block size increment.
Is it necessary to fix the block size at 1MB?
While Bitcoin was in its development stage, questions regarding the Bitcoin block size limit began concerning many developers. Mike Hearn shared April 2009’s mail of Satoshi Nakamoto where he questioned him regarding the Bitcoin block size limit. In the mail, Satoshi Nakamoto explained his perspective regarding the Bitcoin network size. However, it is essential to note that a lot has changed since Satoshi left Bitcoin, and his perspective seems to fail.
Later on July 14, 2010, the maximum block size of Bitcoin value of 1MB was set on the client. And a few months later, Satoshi had some discussions with the developers like Hal Finney and Cryddit. Following the discussion, we found that Hal was concerned regarding a potential Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack.
Finally, after the discussion, Satoshi with other developers imposed the 1MB default Bitcoin block size to reduce the chance of spamming and hijacking the Bitcoin network. Following the conversation ahead, we encountered that Satoshi has hinted at a future date when the Bitcoin block size is expected to increase.
Satoshi was the only brain behind the project
Later on 14th June 2011, Gavin Andresen presented the project to the US CIA, which is the reason behind Satoshi’s going in the dark. As Satoshi left the project, the community became a suspicious bunch. Moreover, without the brain behind the project, the Bitcoin block size limit issue had no authoritative decision-maker. Also, the Bitcoin miners, users, and developers’ networks were minimal at the time.
Read More: Didn’t Satoshi Nakamoto leave a trail to find his identity?
Read More: Can Satoshi Nakamoto become the world’s richest person?
First ever change in BTC block size
Later in 2012, Andresen began setting the Bitcoin block size limit as while working closely with Satoshi in the early days, he also had admin access. First, he set the size to 250 KB in July 2012. And late next year, he again changed the size to 750 KB. Notably, at the time, only one group left working on the Bitcoin repository, that too without any notion of a Core developer.
Read More: Scalability and Bitcoin block transactions an issue to be addressed
Read More: A Time When Community Consensus Laid In Larger Block Sized Bitcoin
Introduction to BitcoinXT broke out a terrific rumpus
Earlier in 2014, Andresen stepped back as the main developer of Bitcoin. After his backing, Hearn published a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP 64), which began as Bitcoin’s alternative client BitcoinXT.
In late 2014, Hearn introduced BitcoinXT, which raised the Bitcoin block size to 8 MB. However, the core development team deemed the increment of the size as too risky to get attacked.
Why was BTC-NG introduced?
After, BitcoinXT, Ittay Eyal, Adam Gencer, Emin Sirer, and Robbert Redness rolled out Bitcoin-NG. This fork provided a method of scaling the project’s capacity by offloading transactions under the same security model.
Blockchain scaling became an essential issue
Later in 2015, Andresen considered that the Bitcoin block size needs to be addressed soon, as the blocks were 30-40% full. According to Andresen, if the transaction count gets large enough, the Bitcoin blockchain will get oversaturated and stop being productive.
Later on, when the discussions began on Reddit after Bitcointalk.org, a user questioned why 4 core developers are not increasing the block size. However, following the scenario of that time, Andresen rejected the idea of setting an explicit and unchangeable limit on block size and considered that as a policy decision. Furthermore, he deemed that Bitcoin miners and nodes should decide themselves regarding the issue. It was then Chinese miners, including F2Pool, Antpool, BTCChina, Huobi, and BW, signed a petition that they wanted 8MB blocks.
After all the scenes, in June 2015, Bram Cohen, the creator of Bittorent, came up with a proposal to increase the Bitcoin block size to 20 MB. A user named LiteCoinGuy had then posted a topic highlighting why to support larger blocks. He concluded by mentioning that 1 MB blocks are not enough as per the scenario. It was also observed that where the other developers were supporting higher Bitcoin blocks, Blockstream employees were squarely in the 1 MB camp.
Hard forks were impermissible, but the soft forks sere acceptable
In August 2015, Hearn introduced the actual meaning of hard and soft forks. The move came after observing individuals in the forums began banning the discussion regarding BitcoinXT. Moreover, he also received several threats to delete services that use them from the official Bitcoin website. Indeed, the actual concerning point was the reason behind BitcoinXT to be an altcoin is due to its intention of triggering a hard fork. In contrast, soft forks were totally acceptable. Following the scenario, Hearn deemed that such positions do not create any technical sense.
Since then, Hearn continued to publish regarding why Bitcoin was forking and explained his XT project and his Bitcoin visions.
Why has BitcoinXT been considered of no use?
At the time, only Andresen’s BIP101 integrated with the XT’s base. Indeed, if the majority of the Bitcoin miners had upgraded to that software, the cryptosphere would have experienced a hard fork. Following the scenario, a Reddit user explained a new policy to change the Bitcoin rules and raise the Bitcoin block size. The user also explained why XT is deemed an altcoin, although it is only in Bitcoin. According to the user, the mention of altcoin came as it is intentionally programmed to diverge from Bitcoin. Indeed his phrases explained the exact mechanism which activates hard forks.
While these issues were spreading, Morgan E. Peck conducted an excellent interview with Adam Back in IEEE Spectrum. Later in the interview, Adam Back claimed that XT was no good, rather more risky, and also the activation rate was very low.
Moreover, according to Back, XT’s complaints were manifold, and the 75% activation vote was also very low. In response, XT’s developer wrote explaining the fork that the limitations of the original software were blocking the growth of the blockchain.
DDOS attacks on BitcoinXT hit the fever pitch
Following all the facts and issues, Maria Bustillos wrote in The New Yorker that the developers could decide on a path ahead. However, all the attempts of forking rose from one fact that Bitcoin core chose to work on building consensus for a hard fork that will increase the block size.
Prior to the above-mentioned publication being released, It was observed that BitcoinXT began to acquire support from major firms. It was then, XT began to receive DDoS attacks, which hit a fever pitch. At the moment, Hearn also began to get attacked and character assignments. The major concern was if any disagreement had arisen between him and Andresen, he would be the benevolent dictator.
Miner voting began against the core developers
In September 2015, Bitfury, the manufacturer of Bitcoin mining rigs, introduced a white paper entitled “Block Size Increase”. The paper analyzed various scaling proposals and concluded that a fork proposal of client software could negatively affect the entire ecosystem. The conclusion also included that for the ecosystem to continue developing, the maximum Bitcoin block size is required to be increased. Indeed, the 1 MB size has limited the scalability of the project.
Hearn wrote that the developers were against the miner voting, not even ready to trigger the change regarding block size. Moreover, the developers posted a set of answers to the scaling queries. However, the developers’ roadmap has no signs of increasing the block size. But, they were allowed to increase the block weight limit via Segwit.
The core also mentioned that, according to few measurements, a block consisting of standard single-signature P2PKH transactions would be about 1.6 MB. Whereas a block consisting of 2-of-2 multisig transactions would be near 2 MB. Indeed, the change caused a call for more Segwit wallet support to gain the advantage from the value. Although the fees were lower, the adoption of such wallets was steady.
Increment of size is what required
Later on, Gregory Maxwell hit the Linux Foundation mailing list and mentioned that such increment wouldn’t be enough at some point. According to Maxwell, the project will only be able to move forward with increments of size when improvements and understanding render their risks broadly acceptable relative to the risks of not rolling them out.
Following everyone bugging for increasing the block size, the core developers shared a massive explanation. The post explained how they are addressing approaches to scaling without increasing the block size.
Coinbase erased from the forum due to wrong decision
BitcoinXT experienced high profiled support, indeed, the factor resulted in delisting Coinbase, one of the leading Bitcoin exchanges from Bitcoin.org. Till then, Coinbase was only supporting Bitcoins and didn’t allow Ethereum or Litecoin trading. After the delisting, earlier in 2016, Hearn quit the project, mentioning that the stranglehold has Core on the Bitcoin block size.
According to Hearn, the capacity limit didn’t arise due to the blockchain being controlled by the Chinese miners. Specifically, only two of them controlled more than 50% of the total Bitcoin hash power. Indeed, the miners are the reason not allowing the blockchain to grow.
Furthermore, he explained one of the reasons why these miners are not allowing such an increase. Hearn stated that the Bitcoin miners have refused to implement the required changes as they didn’t want any competing product.
Indeed, the Bitcoin miners were terrified of taking any step that might cause panic among investors. And they chose to ignore, hoping the issues will be solved. The panic has resulted in a civil war in the community. Moreover, the war tended to erase Coinbase from the official Bitcoin website for picking the wrong side, and also, the startup got banned from the Reddit forums. Seeing such a scenario, it seems like the things at that time went too crazy.
BitcoinXT collapsed, and BTC Classic began to rise
After Coinbase faced removal and ban, skeptics began to speculate regarding the death of Bitcoin. Since then, BitcoinXT nodes were observed falling, and another proposal for Bitcoin Classic popped up, which received 49% of support from the community.
Following the scenario, Austin Hill, the chief executive officer of Blockstream, commented that hard forks end up losing funds. However, earlier in February 2016, BitcoinXT nodes were observed getting entirely collapsed. And Bitcoin Classic emerged from its ashes with a block size of 2MB. Following the collapse of BitcoinXT, Paul Vigna discussed the situation and questioned whether Bitcoin is about to break.
Classic version received support of miners
Although the latest proposal allowed for a 2 MB limit, it consisted of rules to raise the size over time. Cornell’s IC3 group published a file regarding the scaling of decentralized blockchain. The paper recommended a block size limit of four megabytes, which might sound familiar. However, the Classic version got released with 75% of the miner’s support, and the limit raised to 2MB. Around that time, it felt bad to see a temporary light after the end of the long dark tunnel.
Bitcoin’s Roundtable published “A Call for Consensus”
In February 2016, there seemed significant attention in the digital ecosystem. The Bitcoin Roundtable shared a pr-block size increment article entitled “A Call for Consensus”. Indeed, the roundtable represents a massive collection of businesses, Bitcoin exchanges, wallets, miners, and pools. The Roundtable mentioned five positions. The third position requested the core developers to design a roadmap for increasing the block size. They also urged everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision regarding running a contentious hard-fork.
Read More: Fake Bitcoin Fork “Scams” Users To Invest And Share Their BCH Wallet Seeds
Following the Roundtable’s view, it is observed that the undersigned of the above proposal represented 90% of Bitcoin hash rate. It meant that they were ready to drop the Bitcoin Classic proposal if the Core was able to propose a less contentious option. However, they released the plan for rolling out Segwit and a 2MB fork at a meeting in Hong Kong. According to the plan, Segwit was expected to launch in April 2016, and the code for the hard fork will therefore be available by July 2016. For the activation of the fork, they claimed that if the project receives strong community support, it should activate by July 2017.
Segwit and 2MB Hard Fork failed
The Segwit and the 2MB hard fork didn’t happen in July 2016. Adam Back shared his thought that the hard fork is not worth doing, as a block size increase forked off already. Indeed, Back went against the agreement he himself signed. Many pools at the time were observed supporting the Classic project including Slush Pool.
In March 2016, at the Satoshi Roundtable conference in Hong Kong, Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, was found disheartened due to lack of commitment to on-chain scaling. Indeed, he recommended a hard fork of 2MB. Although the Core was comfortable with the fork, they refused to prioritize it, and Armstrong recommended updating before an emergency situation arises. At the time, Bitcoin Classic nodes were observed peaking above 2k.
Was Blockstream only a profit-making organization?
In August 2016, a Redditor asked for the proof behind the whole Blockstream conspiracy hypothesis in detail. Another Reddit user claimed that he knows these names in a very well-mannered way. The user stated that he doesn’t know whether it’s exactly a hypothesis. He mentioned that Blockstream is a for-profit organization, and its goal is like all profit organizations, just to make money. Indeed, the organization’s aim of making money always revolves around sidechains, and such chains are only needed when the main chain cannot accommodate the demand for transactions.
Read More: SegWit Technology Dominates In The Bitcoin Transaction Market
On the other side, the user also mentioned that the organization gives employment to many core developers so that it can guide the development of Bitcoins in accordance with its interest. This is also one of the main reasons they don’t want any increment of the block size. Keeping the block size lower ultimately will push the transactions on the BTC network to sidechains. Observing the fact, it can be concluded that the organization is hindering the Bitcoin blockchain’s growth just to earn. Hence, the organization had thoroughly convinced them that small blocks are the only way to align with their institutional interest.
By October 2016, John Block shared an article with the world, discussing a hard fork’s effects. The article consisted of two parts. After a month, he shared a post on Reddit in the r/Bitcoin forum. The post has a great explanation of censorship’s history, although a little incomplete. It also consists of a great relationship between censorship and the block size, with how forks got disallowed from a discussion based on suspicious rules.
Where the community wanted 2MB, a proposal came for 300KB
Score developer Luke Dashjr, earlier in 2017, proposed to decrease the block size to 300KB and increase slowly to 1MB by 2024. By using such logic, the developer wanted to improve the blockchain. Luke was also tasked with implementing a hard fork to raise the size to 2MB. Rather than increasing, the developer proposed to start low and posted a notice on the developer mailing list.
However, Luke suggested a series of steps and wanted to increase every 97 days. The proposal would have increased the block size to just under 31MB by 2045. Every 97 days, the block size was expected to increase by 4.4%. This would have allowed the blockchain to grow by 17.7% each year. Indeed, the initial size limit after the activation depended on when the fork was activated.
However, the concept confused many developers on the mailing list, and the proposal gained very little interest. Indeed, it was clear that the Bitcoin Core only wanted Segwit. And to achieve that, they needed support from the miners.
Blockstream was not playing a fair role
Back went to China, had meetings with all the Chinese miners when the miners accepted the proposal of Segwit and a 2MB fork. A QnA was performed then by 8BTC, where the community members voted for the Core proposal and Bitcoin Classic. Interestingly, the survey only translated everything, where 89% of the members voted for Bitcoin Classic, and only 10% voted for the Core. A steemit user, namely @adambalm, posted regarding the goals of Blockstream. Indeed, for years the notion of developers shifting from BTC blockchain scaling repeated. To understand the debate, a “wall of text” reply is needed to read.
Read More: Blockstream’s Liquid Network Faces Bug Issues; Millions of Bitcoin Jeopardized
The reply explained how the Blockstream began to lobby the community by paying for conferences regarding the block size increment. Unsurprisingly, no conference ended up with a conclusion, and no decisions were made, which clarified that all were strategies for restricting the support of scaling software.
Arise of the ASICBoost controversy in the ecosystem
Lack of final solutions hinder and splinter in the community. The proposal for Segwir 2MB got rejected. According to Luke DashJR, the rejection came after a community discussion. After the rejection, only one question arose, whether the pull request was set up to fail only.
In April 2017, the ASICBoost debate arose in the industry’s air. The controversy came as a potential exploit of the Proof-of-Work algorithm in BTC, which was impossible with Segwit. This new controversy was enabled by means of a soft fork, due to which Bitmain blocked Segwit. Many commented regarding the politics behind the controversy, which concluded that Bitcoin would remain in danger until block size gets treated as a technical security setting.
Blockstream criticized by the BTC community
ViaBTC shared an article regarding why the miners don’t support Segwit. ViaBTC explained how the core influenced the community and how they hindered the increment of blocksize by abusing their influence. In a few cases, the core has also handed in the censorship of Bitcoin’s mainstream forums and also caused the removal of many prominent members. In the article, the miner also demanded for diversified developers teams and implementations to get back the decentralization of Bitcoin.
Secondly, Digital Currency Group popped up with an article entitled “Bitcoin Scaling Agreement at Consensus 2017”. The article spawned Segwit2x implementation with the plan to follow through with these upgrades to the network. Indeed, the proposal’s opponents called it a Corporate takeover of BTC with little support.
Third, Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, posted an article mentioning that Blockstream tried to use the patents of Segwit offensively. Likewise, many others in the community criticized Blockstream and its investors.
Bitcoin’s controversy helped altcoins to gain
In May 2017, Bitcoin’s scaling debate helped fuel the altcoin bubble. The entire cryptosphere witnessed Bitcoin losing its market dominance to altcoins. Jameson Lopp of BitGo shared an article, which focused upon the challenges faced to estimate BTC transaction cost.
Over social platforms, many users from the community posted concerns regarding Blockstream. A Steemit user deemed Segwit as a trojan horse. And many began to explain the situation and how Blockstream hindered the increment of the block size.
Read More: South Korean Banking Association worried Over Surge of the Altcoin Trading Frenzy
Read More: Market Wrap: Bitcoin Reaches $58K, Rises After US Jobs Miss, But Altcoins Dominate
A Reddit user explained that, during backlogs, the fees and delays were completely unpredictable. Furthermore, a bulk fraction of the transactions were inevitably delayed by weeks. The transactions paying the minimum fee were confirmed in the next block for a reason when there was no free market. Indeed, that was similar to what Mike had predicted previously.
BTC hard forks began to urge in the ecosystem
In July 2017, Jonald Fyookball published an article announcing the Bitcoin Cash hard fork launch. Jimmy Song wrote the Bitcoin Tech Talk newsletter and maintained an unbiased and technical viewpoint on hard forks. Song also published an article regarding Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash hard fork came up with 8MB of block size in August 2017.
Following all the scenarios, Oliver Janssens explained why non-mining full nodes are a terrible idea. According to Oliver, the role of Bitcoin nodes has been misunderstood. Furthermore, although it seems to empower to run a full node to verify transactions, verifications can also be processed via running light clients and Simple Payment Verification (SPV) mode. However, such modes of verification require a fraction of the resources to monitor incoming transactions. And also offers the same security, as an SPV client is typically connected to numerous servers. At the time, the most popular SPV client was Electrum, connected to ten nodes by default.
Segwit2x is an attack on BTC network
Near the same time, Eric Lomborzo, a Core developer, highlighted that the Segwit2x proposal is an attack on the Bitcoin network. Observing that they are losing control, the core developers began to create FUD in the ecosystem. This time it seemed like the core realized what losing control over the client could mean. To be specific, what the core desired was no good to the community, and the majority in the community wanted the legacy chain. Following the facts, Luke tweeted to ask not to use Segwit for normal transactions.
Later in October 2017, David Farmer, the Director of Communications at Coinbase, announced the upcoming forks, Segwit2x and Bitcoin Gold. After the announcement, exchanges and wallets began to put out measures to treat the forks. Late in October 2017, Gemini, a crypto assets exchange, claimed that the framework would not be usable in future chain split situations. Bitfinex then announced that they would be ignoring the hashing power and stick with the legacy version. Coinbase also released clarifications upon the Segwit2x fork and directly refuted the idea of hashing power.
What were the phases the BTC scaling debate faced?
In the first era since Bitcoin was established, Bitcoin was almost free due to invaluable and low demand. At the time, users would have shared any amount of Bitcoin for free. With time, the token’s volatile nature began to produce intermittent capacity issues. Such issues were previously dealt with optimizations and tweaks, but now such issues are more regular and significant.
Will Bitcoin’s block size ever increase?
The introduction of Segregated Witness (Segwit) was the last attempt to increase the Bitcoin block size. However, the attempts failed because of the culture, technology, and governing development team. Indeed, the main reason behind the failure lacks support from the entire Bitcoin community.
It is not yet sure whether the Bitcoin block size will ever increase via hard forks, but it is clear that ignorance will ultimately lead to problems. Such problems include unusable Bitcoin wallets, and merchants will choose other alternatives with lower fees, growing transaction backlogs will reduce mining rewards, and worse when individuals will stop touching the blockchain.
Moreover, following the debates and controversies about what happened in the past years, it is clear that larger block size is not a decentralization pressure. Recently, Roger Ver also deemed to increase the block size after observing the scenario. However, comparing other forks of the network, we can witness that nodes perform well with 8MB sizes.
Why is the block size increment significant?
Bitcoin prices are continually soaring to achieve new highs. The price of Bitcoin fluctuates on the basis of demand and supply theory. Since last year, when the United States government began to print more dollars as an economic financial stimulus package the value of fiat currencies globally decreased. Ultimately the world was facing inflation, and institutions began to find investment instruments to protect their fund’s value.
Financial institutions like MicroStrategy and Square Inc are the first who found the digital currency as a store of value and inflationary hedge. Following the value of asset class several other financial institutions began to adopt Bitcoin. The mainstream adoption helped the digital currency to gain traction globally.
Still, if we send Bitcoins worth $5 or $10 somewhere around the world, it gets difficult as the transaction fees are way higher than the amount. According to experts in the cryptosphere, the transaction fees will surge more with the mainstream adoption of the cryptocurrency.
Now here it is noteworthy, that with small Bitcoin block size, Bitcoin mining operations will be able to process less Bitcoin transactions. Indeed, the slow Bitcoin transactions processing has caused a surge in the transaction fees.
Read More: UK Banks cracking down on payments to cryptocurrency exchanges
Read More: Dubai Real Estate Sector Still Doubtful of Crypto Payments
Will increasing the block size help decrease the transaction cost?
Back in March 2021, Roger Ver, world’s first investor to invest in the Bitcoin start-ups explained the importance of block size increments. Ver, compared Bitcoin transactions count and fees with Bitcoin Cash’s. Notably, After soaring transaction count on BCH blockchain, still the transaction fee is almost about zero. On the other hand, with soaring transaction count, the transaction fees are also soaring on the Bitcoin blockchain.
It is acceptable that increasing block sizes was way risky for Bitcoin core developers when the cryptocurrency was not heavily adopted. However, following the current scenario, it seems the core developers should now increase the Bitcoin block size.
Read More: Bitcoin Cash Receives Green Signal From The SC
Crypto miners are against increasing the block size
Crypto miners mine digital currencies to earn mining rewards. No doubt, the operations related to Bitcoin mining are highly profitable in the current scenario. Firms operating Bitcoin mining operations are basically verifying all the transactions and adding in a block. When a miner mines one successful block, it receives Bitcoin as rewards.
Read More: Crypto mining operations soaring in Brazil due to COVID-19
Read More: Proof of Stake (PoS) to reduce energy consumption in ETH mining
Mining Bitcoin requires heavy consumption of power to solve the consensus. Hence, The miners require time to mine a block using hash power. If a miner finds a block, and another miner mines that block at first, then only he will be able to add the block on the blockchain. Following the fact, if the block size increases, the bigger miners will be able to mine a block at first and can continue on to mining other blocks. Ultimately, the smaller miners will then receive no profits from the mining operations.
Observing the profitability concerns, several miners are against the idea of increasing block size. Moreover, the increment could also bring centralization in the Bitcoin mining industry.
Our current monetary system is a lie
Governments basically generate funds by collecting taxes. If the taxes being collected gets short, they start to create money by simply printing it. Amid the global COVID-19 pandemic the world has already witnessed the masses regarding money printing. The scenario has clearly shown how the printing of fiat currency by the governments devalues our funds. However, if someone has invested all his funds in assets, then the person can feel safe.
Notably, the printing of money distorts the price of traditional assets that we are currently having, like real-estate and stocks. In such conditions, the calculation of the exact value of the asset gets difficult. And when the asset holder doesn’t know about the exact value of the asset, a few of his funds get taxed quietly. Ultimately, the surge you are seeing on your traditional portfolio is a bigger lie.
Read More: Fitch report claims that state-backed CBDCs can disrupt financial system
BTC challenges ownership
In the current scenario, there are few tech giants who have taken our rights from us. In an indirect way, such firms have taken our ownership in the form of our privacy. They can operate on what we think and what we should feel. With our private data these firms are playing psychologically, in collaboration with governments.
When Bitcoin’s creator introduced the Bitcoin Whitepaper, the first idea was to bring equality. Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to prove that money that comes from the dark and helps inflate the stock market is fundamentally wrong. Moreover, privacy of each individual has also a bigger value than money. And it is a very essential point that the world needs to understand.
Read More: Investors dive into crypto market as Bitcoin price dropped
Instead of just an emerging asset class, Bitcoin removes the borders that are restricting us and snatching our freedom. Bitcoin is a store of value that protects our hard earned funds from governments. And the most essential point is Bitcoin keeps our privacy safe.
Similar to the Internet, Bitcoin is also inevitable. The flagship crypto asset can basically be considered as the beginning of the Internet evolution.
