I don't understand people like you. We were in the ~250$ range for a very long time after which the price went to around ~450$. This sudden rise is not something that can ever be stable. It has to correct itself (i.e. come down) from time to time. Last night Bitfinex was down for a few hours as far as I know. That could have been a contributing factor (as the people there were losing money not being able to trade, while other exchanges were going down). You should not be looking to solely profit, and know by now that this is the wrong section for price speculation. Yeah, we can afford to wait longer to earn higher profits, as price is not too good at a moment to sell as it will not allow you to make higher profits.
Bitcoin was meant to be used not "wait longer to earn higher profits". |
|
|
|
You should not be talking about any kind of altcoins, regardless of whether the posts are positive or negative. That section is solely for Bitcoin related price talk (moderation should be discussed in Meta).  ~Lauda |
|
|
|
And so offering up SegWit as a solution that will increase transaction capacity 1.8 fold is a little misleading don't you think?
Nobody has offered Segwit as a solution to increase transaction capacity. Segwit was designed as a solution to malleability, which comes with a few other benefits (including increase transaction capacity). If you don't use Segwit and complain about transactions (and/or capacity) then you'd be a hypocrite. It may increase capacity by some (largely unknown but certainly less than 1.8x) amount at some (largely unknown) point in the future if it gets implemented and used.
I don't see why people would not use it. Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged. |
|
|
|
I think I've never done a single transaction which was worth less than $10. But there's a risk because of competition. What if some altcoin could perform faster and cheaper transactions than BTC? This is a market economy. BTC rules as of today, but many people, including myself, are looking at altcoins. Core developers should always have in mind that if BTC has a hiccup, there will be many altcoins ready, and willing to beat it.
If those altcoins had any desirable technology that is worth implementing into Bitcoin, it would be implemented. Nobody in their right mind cares about them besides traders who want to profit (excluding a few niche coins, e.g. for anonymity and such). And so back to my original question - when is it expected that we will reach that "top" point?
Nobody can answer that question. They'd just be making guesses. As such, I can't answer this either. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generator.
|
|
|
|
But is that the point at which Segwit will start to deliver increased capacity? From my reading (which may have misled me) I had understood that users actually had to send and receive Segwit transactions in order for it to provide that increase in capacity? I was really wondering what was the (your) expectation for when we would be at that point?
That is correct. As soon as some people use the updated client and interact with each other, we will see increased capacity. The more users use Segwit the more capacity the network 'will get'. This will reach a top somewhere around ~180% (or 1.8 MB of TX data). |
|
|
|
As "high" is perfectly subjective, we can always be correct, clever. I may need to use this terminology instead of "higher", thanks for the correction.
It is indeed. However, "higher" throughput would also be anything > ~3 (which we currently have). I'd consider high throughput somewhere above what Visa does on average (which is 2000 TPS according to some sources). |
|
|
|
Well said as usual. Increasing the potential size of blocks would not enable higher throughput.
No. I said it is not able to provide "high throughput", not "higher". There's a huge difference. Unless of course, you consider 6 TPS to be "high throughput". In that case I can't help you.  When would you expect Segwit to actually be in place and delivering the "awaited" capacity 'boost' to the live network?
The miners decide how long it takes them to adopt it. I can't be the one to predict that accurately. I'd say somewhere in Q3/Q4 this year (if nothing goes severely wrong). |
|
|
|
Why isn't that acceptable? For me it's perfectly acceptable, since I don't buy single lollipops expecting instant confirmation.
Bitcoin was never designed for micro-transactions and as such will most likely not be the best solution for them (depending on what you define as a micro-transaction). The average is still extremely low for all ordinary transactions. Also the "Bitcoin is cheaper than fiat"-thing is not the main attraction factor of Bitcoin. Even if Bitcoin transactions would be significantly more costly than traditional methods, Bitcoin would have a huge user base, because it is more secure and not subject to devaluation and centralized control like fiat.
It is pointless trying to tell this to some people. For example: Someone recently complained on r/btc about a TX fee of $50, for some TX that was over 4 KB (or 2000% bigger than normal). They pick out these weird examples and make it seem like the whole system is overly expensive (which it isn't). I don't want, nobody wants BTC to evolve into a rich guys club only exchanging large sums and who don't mind paying substantial fees.
Nobody can prevent BTC from becoming more expensive unless you figure out a way that both defies spam and enables a high throughput. Hint: LN is the closest thing that we have for high throughput, and increasing the block size limit is trivial for these two things (neither does it defy spam nor enable high throughput). I agree with you. The Bitcoin fee is already growing too big and makes Bitcoin look unappealing and inefficient.
If you are too cheap to pay 5-10 cents, you shouldn't complain about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Public blockchains enable publishing. When I make a publicly verifiable transaction on the bitcoin network, it is just publishing that the coin is now held by a new address.
That's the idea behind a blockchain. Making it private, or closed is counter-intuitive. Exactly. It is really unbelievable to see how bankers try to employ some buzz-worded "blockchain-technology" for any use case that pops up into their minds irrespective of the efficiency of the solution. Most of banker's blockchain use cases can be served by traditional data banks much more efficiently. The simple reason is that bankers consistently renounce the most important aspect of the Bitcoin blockchain: decentralization. If you want a centrally controlled service, there is no advantage of using "blockchain-technology" over a simple data bank.
What I see happening here is that they improve their services with a closed blockchain (or with multiple blockchains) which will cut down their cost, but I think that this will have a great effect on the customer. Even though a closed blockchain does not have intrinsic value as its main aspects are lost, it does have a much greater potential than the systems that are already in place. Just think about Visa. Look at how long it takes them to completely settle transactions and compare those times with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I use coinbase is it legit or a scam?
It is "legit" but has too many ties to banks and regulations. I've seen a lot of people complain about their service though. Why should I stop using coinbase? may I know the reason
The OP has answered this simply: Once you have a "big problem", the support just ignores you for quite some time. Horrible customer service. |
|
|
|
Here's a small list: 1) Don't use Coinbase. 2) Service discussion threads should be in service discussion. 3) Nobody can really tell you here what the problem is. Coinbase has the answer. As I don't use Coinbase myself (staying away from them is the smarter decision), I'm not aware of their support services (e.g. Bitstamp has great support IMO). Are they really that bad, i.e. they ignore you for a while? |
|
|
|
What do you think blockchains can be used for? Obviously decentralising banks, but I am interested in the more unexpected options
No. That's not what is going to happen. The correct statement would be "Bitcoin's blockchain could decentralize the financial system.". Closed, private and similar type of blockchains are pointless. They are not immutable, nor resistant to corruption. I don't understand how these people do not realize this. Such a blockchain is worthless as it retains no attributes that give it the intrinsic value.
I'm certain that there are a lot of use-cases that we have not even thought about yet. This was surely discussed already, so it might be worth searching for relevant threads. |
|
|
|
If the Ethereum recovers from the current crisis, it could be stronger than ever. There are many big investors in it.
"Recovers" how exactly? By becoming a centralized, alterable and non-censorship-resistant blockchain? Any kind of fork that controls coins is a huge mistake. They're even talking about forcing a HF by investing a lot of money to rent out mining power.
OP, no he's not bullish on ETH. He's just interested in the concept of experiment with smart contracts, not ETH specifically. |
|
|
|
What are you on about? When Lauda said there is no "the mempool", he simply means that it's possible (actually more than likely) for nodes to have different mempools because they have different fee rules. For example, my mempool is typically less than 1MB and contains less than 1000 transactions. My node doesn't forward spam, so it rarely grows much larger than that (even during these spam attacks).
He's a troll, just ignore him. What I said was, there is no "the mempool" which would define that there are X unconfirmed transactions everywhere. This number differs heavily depending on the settings, and you've just made an example. My node relays everything as I want to keep track of the changes throughout the year. Simply increasing the block size will only lead to larger blocks full of spam. If that isn't obvious to you, well I don't know what to say.
He's about to tell you that Blockstream this, or blockstream that or you're also part of Blockstream. Bitcoin's unique use case is censorship-proof transactions. This is why it's valuable. No one in their right mind should be concerned whether or not they can pay for a coffee using the-ledger-that-every-full-node-must-keep-a-permanent-record-of-forever and get cheap, fast confirmations to boot!
Exactly. The intrinsic value of the blockchain lies within decentralization, immutability and censorship resistance. I agree, anyone that says that block size isn't going to be a problem, their stupid.
Read the actual thread for once and ignore the trolls. The post above you gives decent input. |
|
|
|
You don't have that knowledge.
Of course I do, but that is not even relevant. I know. It is like advanced mathematics.
Correction: Wasting time with useless nonsense.
Now to direct back to the thread: "Core have been derelict in their duties". This is a false statement especially if you consider the Classic 0.12.1 implementation, or should I say anti-implementation? The developers just removed the warnings of the features that it does not have. It was discussed before and now Maxwell has made another post about it. How many (non-destructive features) has Classic developed in comparison to Core? |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generator.
|
|
|
|
Yes. Thats what I said you saiid. You cleverer than all of them people.
Having more knowledge does not imply being more intelligent, but sure, I'll take that. Yes, I know you cant understand 1+1=2=twice as much=scaling=solution.
That does not even make sense. The one you said finally gets it.
He's not a "Bitcoin sage".
I don't see the point of these posts. You aren't making arguments of any kind. Read the post above yours. |
|
|
|
Lauda,
Anyone asking about a block size increase doesn't know what they are talking about. Lauda is more cleverer than them.
No. Anyone spreading the false information that a block size limit increase improves scalability or is a solution of any sort does not know what they're talking about. Obviously 2 mb is no solution at all. (wait for segwit 4mb with the 1.8mb effect)
Yes and yes. Yet someone who cannot spell or nothing is a bitcoin coding sage?
Who's the "Bitcoin coding sage"? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
