for any average consumer what is the benefit of making an irreversible payment? It benefits the seller, not the buyer Though, I'm not selling anything And I got 160$ limited on PayPal for 180 days, so yeah, I like that bitcoin is irreversible unfortunately, "the customer is always right"  |
|
|
|
There are times I want to buy a cheap piece of equipment from China from the very cheapest supplier, which is often a site like bestofferbuy or banggood. I wouldn't trust those sites with my credit card details, but I would be prepared to risk buying from them using Bitcoin because they are often the cheapest choices. The equipment they sell is often cheaper than a cup of coffee. If they started accepting payment in Bitcoin it could boost their sales and possibly increase Bitcoin's transaction volume above the point where it needs bigger blocks.
Don't get me wrong this will happen, I'm not saying either that Biticoin doesn't hold great promises as a transactional currency but we are not there yet. |
|
|
|
Regarding the masses not wanting a payment option that is irreversible: What about cash? That is just as irriversible as bitcoin and we use it every day.
I don't think it will be a big problem, and feedback will play an even bigger role for webshops.
I don't know anyone that uses cash for internet transactions. The "mainstream" crowd everyone apparently targets has exactly zero incentive to use irreversible payments over the internet. |
|
|
|
I've read throughly your post and I have noticed that you have stated at least 5 strong use cases for Bitcoin. You have also stated the one pessimistic use case and that is the mass payments for buying a cup of coffee for example.
I am happy about the other 5 use cases that have a lot of potential according to you. If we would be able to win some market cap in some of those 5 use cases, there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin would be huge.
Now about mass payment. More I read about the block size increase problem, more I came to a conclusion that the right, perfect solution is very hard to find. Might be that in the end, because we can't find a perfect solution, we will have to opt out for the best possible solution. I see it here that we might drop the mass payment system as you have advised. Especially if we will have to choose between performance (more TPS) and security. Of course if we don't find some miracle solution that will make both worlds happy.
I repeat, even if we drop the mass payment feature, I think that Bitcoin still could have amazing future.
This is a false dichotomy. The mass payment feature will not be "dropped", it will be served by second-level open-source payment layers. You mean Bitcoin lightning network and sidechains, right? Like I said, I hope some miracle solutions will be derived so we can have the best of both worlds! Lightning network, voting pools, open source payment systems (Strawpay). It doesn't need to be a miracle. These tools are there already, technologists doing what they do, they will find solution to these problems. |
|
|
|
I've read throughly your post and I have noticed that you have stated at least 5 strong use cases for Bitcoin. You have also stated the one pessimistic use case and that is the mass payments for buying a cup of coffee for example.
I am happy about the other 5 use cases that have a lot of potential according to you. If we would be able to win some market cap in some of those 5 use cases, there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin would be huge.
Now about mass payment. More I read about the block size increase problem, more I came to a conclusion that the right, perfect solution is very hard to find. Might be that in the end, because we can't find a perfect solution, we will have to opt out for the best possible solution. I see it here that we might drop the mass payment system as you have advised. Especially if we will have to choose between performance (more TPS) and security. Of course if we don't find some miracle solution that will make both worlds happy.
I repeat, even if we drop the mass payment feature, I think that Bitcoin still could have amazing future.
This is a false dichotomy. The mass payment feature will not be "dropped", it will be served by second-level open-source payment layers. |
|
|
|
|
the biggest innovation of bitcoin is a fixed monetary supply.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately Bitcoin will never be able to scale as a world global payment network without compromising at a certain level, either by handling transactions into a private company (blockstream) whose will deal with transactions that don't pay an enough high fee, or by becoming totally centralized since the node will be way enough for the average joe to deal with, so I would rather have the blockstream solution. This is all better than what we have now.
It's not handing processing to Blockstream at all. All Blockstream are doing is writing software protocols, so the actual operating of all side chains or lightning hubs will be open to competition. We'll see how competitive the incentive structures are when the details get firmer. Exactly. To anyone with a hint of foresight it was always clear that Bitcoin would not support all of the world's financial infrastructure on its own blockchain. In order to provide us with a decentralized protocol layer Satoshi had to make considerable design compromises, often at the cost of efficiency and flexibility. By enabling the creation of this quasi-trustless source of monetary value Satoshi allowed for an unprecedented, permissionless development of financial tools creating true market competition for more open-source, efficient & trust-minimizing platforms supported by Bitcoin's liquidity. While the notion of "being your own bank" is a cool marketing gimmick it really isn't practical considering the effort one has to go through to make actual, proper use of Bitcoin. Yes, that involves running a full node. No, "bitcoinating" has nothing to do with web wallets, consumer-friendly "killer apps" & "merchant processors". Consequently, if you decide to trust your "Bitcoin" business with such entities then it would seem to me other similar "users" should have no problem relying on second-level layers for their VISA payment network pipedreams. Fortunately the trade-off really isn't as bad as I make it sound. The market-lead demand for these solutions will necessarily lead to valuable innovations in true open-source fashion. Lightning, side-chains are early demonstrations of this and more is to come. |
|
|
|
Ethereum itself, and that includes both Ethereum as a thing and for vaporware and Ethereum as a scam – it really hasn't grown.
|
|
|
|
How close are we to moving everything XT related into a sub section of the forum or even dumping it all it the altcoin section?
It's quite clear that XT is now a non discussion & doesn't belong in the main part of the forum.
RIP XT.
Thread serves as guidance for confused noobs. |
|
|
|
They need to wake up and start getting this thing operative yesterday. I mean we've been waiting for what, years now? for a good exchange to arrive, and there's little time before people start refering to Gemini as some sort of vaporware thing. At this point im not sure if it will have any impact on the price at all. I just hope old money and traditional people with lots of dollars find an easy way to securely invest in Bitcoin with this.
I don't see why yet another exchange is such a big deal at all. Simply because it comes from two public figures it's no reinvention of the basic concept and there's no reason to believe it will be fundamentally better or more secure than the existing exchanges. If you ask me, the twin are too late to the show to land a major success with their exchange. The same applies to their ETF, if it takes another 1-2 years to launch, because investment vehicles for Bitcoin will only be needed for a transition period until Bitcoin becomes mainstream and direct ownership will be the norm. ya.ya.yo! I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the importance of connections. I think the Winklevoss confidence and part of the hype around their projects stems from the proposition that they have felt a strong interest from old money investors and they know "if they build it they will come". A fully compliant, institution friendly, exchange promising to become a source of liquidity for a NASDAQ trading ETF is something that will raise eyebrows. You speak of "yet another exchange" but I'm curious what do you consider the competition to be? For an American-based institutional investor there's really no one but itBit & Coinbase. Then again, Coinbase being a Silicon Valley product I don't believe they are an appealing offering for NY pockets, yet. So if you ask me, the twins are still very much on track to establish an household brand in the Bitcoin ecosystem and considering next year's halving they may do so with remarkable timing. |
|
|
|
|
To be fair I've been under the impression that they were a little taken aback by itBit's charter announcement. Remember that back in the 1st quarter of this year they were up in the medias confident that the BitLicenses were the last working mile for launch of Gemini.
Then itBit's trust company charter happens in early may. Two months later we learn Gemini begins seeking approval for a similar charter.
My question is: if that was their plan all along why bother with the BitLicenses? From what I have gathered the trust status supersedes, at least to an important extent, the license.
I still trust that their projects will become centrepiece in Bitcoin's next ride but this one aspect raised a little doubt. I think they have the connections to make this thing work though. In fact I'm sure a lot of bigger players are now driving this venture from behind the scene.
|
|
|
|
Lmao Wtf is he even on? Trippin balls!  Are you two arguing that the ability to construct blocks according to one's volition is not valuable? If you agree that it is valuable, why do you doubt that a market for it would emerge? Cloud mining is not a market, it is a scam. If you wanna get into the mining market, buy some gear and set up your own mining operation. Anything else you do is patently irrelevant. |
|
|
|
My question is: would you consider legitimate markets for buying and selling hash power to be a scam? If so, why?
Considering there is absolutely no way to get any kind of return on your investment I'd say it is most definitely a scam. Thank you for answering. I disagree of course. Entities selling hash power would earn slightly more on average than pointing their equipment at a pool (so sellers do have an ROI advantage). This bonus is paid for by entities buying hash power as a way to express their vote. In other words, what we're seeing is a market emerge for the ability to construct blocks according to one's volition. Constructing blocks according to one's volition has value; it's how Bitcoin's consensus mechanism works and evolves.  Of course I'm referring to the buyer's ROI. The nonsense you just typed has nothing to do with the reason for the existence of cloud mining services ponzis. Literally no one but XT retards are buying cloud mining to "construct blocks according to one's volition". The simple pretense that these shenanigans would somehow move the needle in the balance of power is asinine and for you to defend such a scheme shows how desperate you and your gang are. There is no "vote" Peter and what you describe has nothing to do with Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. |
|
|
|
Also, as others mentioned, cloud mining and hash markets are chock-full with scams and exit-scam schemes. The standard is not offering any guarantees or leverage, which in an unregulated market means what we already should know. Still in 2015 people don't seem to grasp the difference of operating in de-facto unregulated Bitcoin.
Assuming NiceHash works as advertised (you actually get what you pay for and they don't exit scam), would you still consider it a scam? In other words, would you consider legitimate markets for buying and selling hash power to be a scam? If so, why? Most scams usually pretend to "work as advertised" until they don't and then.... it's gone That's not my question. My question is: would you consider legitimate markets for buying and selling hash power to be a scam? If so, why? Considering there is absolutely no way to get any kind of return on your investment I'd say it is most definitely a scam. They're straight up ponzi schemes. |
|
|
|
Also, as others mentioned, cloud mining and hash markets are chock-full with scams and exit-scam schemes. The standard is not offering any guarantees or leverage, which in an unregulated market means what we already should know. Still in 2015 people don't seem to grasp the difference of operating in de-facto unregulated Bitcoin.
Assuming NiceHash works as advertised (you actually get what you pay for and they don't exit scam), would you still consider it a scam? In other words, would you consider legitimate markets for buying and selling hash power to be a scam? If so, why? Most scams usually pretend to "work as advertised" until they don't and then.... it's gone |
|
|
|
Proof-of-work is proof of work done. Unlike node count, it cannot be spoofed. Miners (a) attempt to earn a profit with their hash power, and (b) express their acceptance of protocol rules by way they construct blocks and by the blocks upon which they mine. When a miner points his hash power at a pool, he forfeits (b). When a miner points his hash power at NiceHash (the hash renting service), he sells (b) to the highest bidder (who right now are people who want BIP101 blocks mined). This is an example of a market becoming more efficient. If NiceHash didn't exists, some of those same people would eventually purchase physical hash power, resulting (eventually) in a similar outcome ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem). Again you have no idea of what you're talking about and you are rambling on your spherical cows, which as a mathematician CS annoys me, you are adding to the stereotype. PoW is legit, nobody is denying that, but version bits are being spoofed. This adds to the already known possibility that a version-bit based trigger scheme might get activated without the actual hashing power backing running what they say they are running. Also, as others mentioned, cloud mining and hash markets are chock-full with scams and exit-scam schemes. The standard is not offering any guarantees or leverage, which in an unregulated market means what we already should know. Still in 2015 people don't seem to grasp the difference of operating in de-facto unregulated Bitcoin. As a miner this nonsense makes me laugh, but I do worry about the uncertainty it may cause and at the money it can lose to unsuspecting people in various ways. And with all that, 0.6%. This desperation level is something never seen before |
|
|
|
Proof-of-work is proof of work done. Unlike node count, it cannot be spoofed. Miners (a) attempt to earn a profit with their hash power, and (b) express their acceptance of protocol rules by way they construct blocks and by the blocks upon which they mine. When a miner points his hash power at a pool, he forfeits (b). When a miner points his hash power at NiceHash (the hash renting service), he sells (b) to the highest bidder (who right now are people who want BIP101 blocks mined). This is an example of a market becoming more efficient. If NiceHash didn't exists, some of those same people would eventually purchase physical hash power, resulting (eventually) in a similar outcome ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem). Cloud mining is a scam. You are promoting a scam that will lose people money in support of a project that is already on its deathbed. This actually isn't cloud mining; it's a hash power market not unlike similar markets for electricity. I haven't used the service yet, and I've been hesitant for the reasons you say. However jtoomin from Toomin Bros. Mining (the group that has mined several of the recent BIP101 blocks) can see that NiceHash is indeed pointing the rented hash power at its pool. So it appears NiceHash indeed does what it claims to do.  Welcome to NiceHash, the most advanced crypto currency cloud mining, hash rental service and multipool. I mean look at the fucking website, if that doesn't scream scam to you............. https://www.nicehash.comThey even have the token 5 $ fiverr motion graphic... |
|
|
|
Proof-of-work is proof of work done. Unlike node count, it cannot be spoofed. Miners (a) attempt to earn a profit with their hash power, and (b) express their acceptance of protocol rules by way they construct blocks and by the blocks upon which they mine. When a miner points his hash power at a pool, he forfeits (b). When a miner points his hash power at NiceHash (the hash renting service), he sells (b) to the highest bidder (who right now are people who want BIP101 blocks mined). This is an example of a market becoming more efficient. If NiceHash didn't exists, some of those same people would eventually purchase physical hash power, resulting (eventually) in a similar outcome ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem). Cloud mining is a scam. You are promoting a scam that will lose people money in support of a project that is already on its deathbed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
