Haha. Me and my buddies? Stick to the debate.
Taking that aside, Bitcoin will not be compromised so that billions of people can use the network for their coffee transactions that will be recorded in the blockchain FOREVER. Do you believe that censorship-resistant value transfers should be used to buy coffee? There are trade-offs, and there will be costs to keep the network decentralized while scaling out.
you said to put your buddies aside... yet then go into a speach that your buddies have used time and time again about coffee.. not original, not new, and not the point. atleast try to sound original by doing some research. the coffee debate is outdated and laughed at. try picking a rebuttal with substance that actually shows good technical reason to avoid blockchains. but lets update you... 1. no where on the blockchain would it ever say "coffee". what developers dont want is value of less than $3 being used on a blockchain(equivalent of coffee) 2. in a CENSORSHIP RESISTANT VALUE TRANSFER system, should developers be choosing to CENSOR and RESIST VALUE TRANSFERS of under $3 remember $3 is a weeks wage in some countries..(think before you reply) |
|
|
|
Segwit v2 has already lowered the transaction fees which were getting ridiculously high. It is more about the transaction times that will drive adoption, this is where lightning network comes into play
segwit has not lowered fee's pre segwit fee's were only a couple cents (under $26k a day) post segwit fee's are more than 10cents (over $50k a day) the whole segwit 2015 promise were cheaper fee's where people were expecting sub-penny prices again.. but instead fee's are higher its like walmarts fake offers all that happened was cheese rose by 2000% and then reduced by 5x to make it empty feel like a discount from temporary bubble.. yet still expensive compared to previous norms. put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour. put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour. put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour. if you have not yet done this then... put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour. and then ask yourself about the utility of btc but here we go ago, another dude trying to promote lightning without understanding that its a different network thats not encapsulating features purely for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.
that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.
wrong 1. instead of 2000 transactions needing to increase from say 20cents to become 40cents is the exact same as 4000 transactions needing staying at 20cents. there is no need to avoid 4000tx just to push fe's upto 40 cents. that's an oversimplified analysis. the two situations are not exactly the same in the context of block size. what matters is how many transactions can fit into a block. if all transactions can easily fit into blocks at all times, fees will approach zero because there is no competition to drive fees up. therefore, there is no incentive for miners to publish transactions or secure the chain after inflation ends. the block size limit is the only thing that causes fees to rise above 0 at all. it doesn't matter if there is 2000 or 4000 transactions. what matters is whether there is income for miners. as for security and the cost:
todays ~40exa is just 2million machines(asics)
yet ~40exa 7 years ago was trillions of machines(CPU)
so although the SAME security would have cost people alot more years ago. its actually cheaper now, yet more secure
that's just because miners are subsidizing the cost of transactions. they do this because they're trying to accumulate bitcoins while the inflation rate is still high. this situation is unlikely to exist when the hard cap is reached and fees are miners' only source of income. and all of your rebuttals are empty simply because you wish to avoid scaling the blockchain now. when fe's are not needed, to incentivise more adoption... purely to stifle adoption with debates that only concern things in many decades. its far better to make things cheap and easy to use now. ONCHAIN to get people using bitcoin. and then let th miners concerns play out in a decouple decades. than it is to say bitcoin shouldnt scale now or ever, purely to promote other networks and harp on saying that blockchains cant work. (but they can) |
|
|
|
the problem might boil down to bitcoin's economic design. with a hard cap on supply, inflation will approach 0%. if fees are negligible (by increasing block size beyond current demand), that leaves very little on the table for miners.
that's why this questions is so controversial. increasing block size means sacrificing future guarantees of mining security. i think low fees are more appropriate in blockchains with unlimited supply.
wrong 1. instead of 2000 transactions needing to increase from say 20cents to become 40cents is the exact same as 4000 transactions staying at 20cents. there is no need to avoid 4000tx just to push fee's upto 40 cents. it makes more sense(excuse the pun) to increase transaction capacity. to both allow people to transact and not have to pay as much.. win win win 2. no one is screaming gigabytes by midnight. the growth of more transactions IS needed. but no one is saying it has to be gigabytes by midnight. plus more importantly no one is saying that fee's are important for mining pools this next decade so we can start progressing now. in preparation for a few decades time.. emphasis PROGRESS, delaying and waiting a decade then suddenly jumping helps no on and certainly pee's off billions of people that are still wondering what the hell are developers waiting for 3. also needing everyone to pay an average of 20cents is bad aswell. its far better to have someone that only transacts once a wek pay only 1cent and someone that transact several times a day pay $1 each time. that way the punishment for abuseing the space fits the individual rather than spreading it across to make everyone liable no matter how efficient they are 4. as for security and the cost: todays ~40exa is just 2million machines(asics) yet ~40exa 7 years ago was trillions of machines(CPU) so although the SAME security would have cost people alot mor years ago. its actually cheaper now, yet more secure |
|
|
|
But you concentrate the debate too much on "but Bitcoin is peer to peer electronic cash", and how the Core developers are preventing that from happening. There are trade-offs, and the solution isn't as easy as increasing the block size.
There network needs to scale out.
i talk about many things. you and your buddies just drop in to poke when developers are mentioned. but seeing as you have, then yea it must be highlighted that its the devs that can actually do something about it after all bitcoin is not some self coding AI EG instead of everyone paying standard rate average.. devs could RE-implement a fee priority (yep they removed one). for instance implement a fee where those that spend funds more than once a day pay more per transaction than someone who pays less than once a day. thus being fairer on everyone. rather than effecting everyone due to a few bad actors p.S its you and your buddies that think the only two options are stagnate bitcoin innovation to push other networks. there are many ways to scale bitcoins network. but all your interested in is promoting other networks while suggesting bitcoin is not easy, and shouldnt be electronic cash but my point of the last post is people thinking 10cents is acceptable are being very ignorant to a billion people that would see an advantage for bitcoin.. yet think 10cents is ok for less than a billion people who could easily do the same thing using fiat. in other words bitcoin is being promoted as only fit for those that dont NEED bitcoin, but want it just as a profiteer route. thus missing the whole point of bitcoins invention |
|
|
|
|
many people above are just saying "not a problem" but yet they are not showing the stats or who the problem concerns.
firstly from 2015-2016 fee's per block were BELOW $26k
in 2018 fee's per block are 4x
i know many western countries will keep on being narrow vision to say its all good for western richguys, but again those saying its all good are ignoring BILLIONS of people that have issues with money and want alternative solutions to banks.
when a TX fee costs more than an hourly wage you cant just say "its fine"
wake up people, look outside your own personal circumstance and think about the whole purpose of bitcoin
and no,this aint a time to advertise other networks.
|
|
|
|
Are they really obliged to follow such strict procedures even for what is literally spare change? We're still talking about USD 25,- here, not thousands of dollars.
these days without ID for small amounts there is no way to prove small amounts. EG how do you prove someone has not done 20x $900 rather than 1x$900.. without knowing the persons ID to log their transaction history what you need to realise is 99% of KYC is not to report you. but to let the business police its customers to avoid needing to report |
|
|
|
coinstar is a machine that traditionally converted junk pocket change into a voucher that could be spend in the store.
the reason junk change 'cost' money is because
1. the retailer rents the device so needs to charge a fee for the service
2. the retailer needs to empty the machine regularly. costing labour.
this is why using the traditional junk change to buy bitcoin is not available as the junk change is a service between the customer and retailer.
the bank note-btc is a service between coinstar-customer. not retailer-customer so although its the same device. the service is via a different company contractually(prevents retailer needing a MSB licence)
|
|
|
|
1-) we need to stop the scammers so that governments and banks take seriously the crypto world
2-) we need to stop manipulating the volumes in the exchange
4-) we need to stop with pump and dump schemes so that governments and banks take seriously the crypto world
5-) we need to stop the shitcoins that increase every day
For us to achieve this, probably the only way is to heavily regulate exchanges(correct me if I'm wrong), but I think this is definitely something that most people wouldn't want. Unforutnately, as long as anyone can create and start cryptocurrency projects, then there will always be shitcoins. Again, I think the only way to stop this is heavy regulations. regulations dont stop scammy exchanges. regulations turn exchanges into sherriffs to police its own customers, allowing exchanges to impose rules that can negatively impact customers while protecting the business. whats needed is to strengthen consumer protections. which is different than rgulation. for instance making it easier for consumers to report a business and actually get treated seriously. as an example. in the uk regulations are that a customer cant easily just take a regulated business to court easily. they only recognise claims if a user has gone through the businesses policy first. EG complaints department, formal written complaint, omburdsmen/arbitration and then courts. where each level is designed to dismiss/sway/delay the customer getting a result they want hoping the customer gives up trying. for instance if you done each step and waited 14 days per response per step and 14 day's to the prepare next step it can take a year to have exhausted the policy steps, and then when going through court system, delays can take another couple years and many appeals and costs to discourage customers further |
|
|
|
You don't get no layer two without accessing it via layer one. In a successful scenario demand for layer one space would be enormous. It would be an occasional thing to interact with it, not every single time you move money.
the idea of lightning is that people that have coins on exchanges(cold stored for months/years anyway). where users do not withdraw them to the blockchain personal private keys. but instead an exchange 'credits' a user with a unaudited/unconfirmed 12 decimal channel balance this is where exchanges become "factories" (custodians) thus the amount of transactions occurring onchain REDUCE. trying to say that there will be more transactions onchain is a false notion. as the whole point of LN is to take demand AWAY from bitcoin network what happens will be that the bitcoin network will end up just processing custodian(factory) batch transactions as they swap reserves. and individual users are left stuck in joint contracts(not 100% control) channels. or paying huge fee's if they want self control all for the FALSE rhetoric that fee's need to be high and utility needs to be low |
|
|
|
|
crowdfunding would be needed to covr the cost of publishing (printing) thousands of copies. yet people like to see a prototype/design first
it might be worth you creating just the front page of the comic to show example of graphic quality and expectation of content
|
|
|
|
How is converting coins into bills something that requires a fee?
coinstar is a machine that traditionally converted junk pocket change into a voucher that could be spend in the store. the reason junk change 'cost' money is because 1. the retailer rents the device so needs to charge a fee for the service 2. the retailer needs to empty the machine regularly. costing labour. this is why using the traditional junk change to buy bitcoin is not available as the junk change is a service between the customer and retailer. the bank note-btc is a service between coinstar-customer. not retailer-customer so although its the same device. the service is via a different company contractually(prevents retailer needing a MSB licence) |
|
|
|
|
people DO NOT need to pay high fee's to make bitcoin mining functional. here is why
1. having an increased transaction count per block can offset this.
EG 2000 tx of 25cents doesn't mean 2000 tx of 50cents after a halving. instead 4000 tx of 25cents offers the same solution
this is not a point where the usual snake charmers shout out "gigabytes by midnight" or "blockchains cant scale".
reality is they can scale. and it doesnt need to be jumping extra large real fast. but progressively over time
2. the 1.2fee:12.5reward wont 'flip' for a few decades. so shouting out we need fee wars now are empty argument
3. changing the mining algo to be less 'costly' to mine can provide solutions too
4. just because difficulty has gone up. doesn't mean it has to continue go up. difficulty can plateau,
so COSTS may not increase continually thus not need to increase the fee
5. though the reward halves. the price of reward deflates(goes up) meaning 12.5btc today is worth more than 25btc pre 2016.
so tx fee's are not essential replacement, because the btc price deflation is the replacement
6. if pools cant make profit. they wont mine as strongly. its not like they are forced to work.
they can give up. leaving and letting the remainers have a larger slice of the pie to offset.
EG if 100k asics was getting $50k per block($0.50 each) but were not making profit. then say half stopped.
now 50k asics are getting $50k ($1 each)
|
|
|
|
|
without going into the social drama of altcoins
essentially you just imagine it like dollars
BTC is the US dollar and BCH is canadian dollar and SV is australian
yep BTC(US) is the popular one and yes when someone shouts out they want "dollar" its best to ask do you want U.S, canadian or austrailan as they are different
but as soon as you start saying any crypto is just 'plastic' your just then opening a can of worms to try explaining why btc is not plastic by same definition. so easier to say its just another less popular currency much like canada and australia
many people when denouncing crap coins as scams then fall flat on their face when they then have to try describing why if 2000 coins are scams then default the one coin that uses same tech must also be.. which then takes too much effort to explain the differences. so just keep it simple
|
|
|
|
|
btcc has literally disappeared in 2017-8.. no ones talking about them
|
|
|
|
I never "blindly promoted" Lightning in the forum, but I never posted "disfigured facts" on how it functions either.
Or maybe you didn't understand how it works, go do your research again.
On this topic, should be be concerned on the people who edits and maintains the "Bitcoin Core developers" page in Wikipedia?
its about the core developers. and when you and your buddies poke the bear and all you get to say is "wrong because wrong" shows you need to do more research oh and when i simplify it down to ELI-5 is not "disfigured facts" its called simplify things into non jargon, non bs take jargon like "inflight upgrades" which mean upgrades without needing consensus. in reality thats a backdoor take jargon like "wallet" which mean stores funds. but in reality a wallet.dat is a keyring analogy what i find funny is how you and your buddies say the same stuff like a scripted echo chamber, but then all get upset when i say you need to research. so why do you and your buddies get upset whn being told to do some research have you learned about multisig/factories/routers to denounce your own 'no third party' bs |
|
|
|
|
trading bitcoin for USD... is a big no no as that also requires MSB licences which are a SEC requirement
it doesnt matter if the 'USD' is just a mysql database balance, a crypto/stable coin.. any token/balance thats pegged or described as value as USD puts it in the realm of being a MSB
|
|
|
|
Firstly thanks a lot for the anwsers and your help i really appreciate it, cuz i found difficulties when asking that kind of Questions just a few people reply and answer question  6. in simplified terms the block header has a nonce. ASIC create a hash that is the block header and where the nonce changes. this makes the hash change. they keep changing the nonce until they find a hash that meets the difficulty requirements what a form that the nonce take (Numbers ...)? and from where it is generated ? 7. imagine it like 15 different groups(pools) racing each other to get a block hash result that meet the rules. only one can win per block. but the other unrewarded pools can create a block and win the reward in the next (x) time ? 6. the nonce. is just a space to put in a number. imagine you had some text : 'blahblahblahdeblah' the text and a nonce would be like blahblahblahdeblah000000 if you hashed it you would get 161F37591904929E6EBFDD9BA4DFB22C092204DE58D552E46FF9F771AAF186D4 so changing the nonce changes the result blahblahblahdeblah000000=161F37591904929E6EBFDD9BA4DFB22C092204DE58D552E46FF9F771AAF186D4 blahblahblahdeblah000001=86E8E440341479C85888F906EE103579BE4EF34582FDECB546BBF43AC3C3A904 blahblahblahdeblah000002=887C68F2C56015B3CBFE4D3E76531AA2A1B4855CE9394940F783B0BE01BF1ABC blahblahblahdeblah000003=E110996EBDBFFD6FB63D78FEABE2AF3F89577CE031A9764C6D6C4C98F3711794 blahblahblahdeblah000004=576889D3D11E55ACA59B4176B2119ED8B7DD8B571C0622AEFB0B4564F1D2D71D 7. if a few pools crate blocks within seconds of each other there is a chance that different users would get different blocks. depending on how they are connected to each other.(a small rar chance of this happening) ALL the pools then restart working on the next block. and again whoever is fastest wins. and this time the gap between first and second place might be wider so now the winner is a clear winner which then makes all users choose to trust the fastest clear winner. and so will hold onto the blocks that are linked to the winner chain of previous linked hashes and ignore the second place people in second place dont win anything. they just have to retry and hope at some point they gt to first place. due to issues where users might (rarely) hold a different block due to the race competition.. block rewards are not spendable instantly.. but instead untill 100 other blocks are stacked/linked ontop because the chances of people editing blocks and then catching up (point 4) and also the races swapping latest blocks. are not going to be a concern to a block 100 blocks deep(100 confirms) as the odds of negative impact resulting in changing something 100 blocks ago is soo small. its then deemed safe to let the winner finally spend their rewards of the block they won 100 blocks ago |
|
|
|
|
OP
your quoting a crap media
crap media quoting a panda
panda is quoting an image of a tweet
image of a tweet is quoting a tweet that says
if you store coins yourself you control your security
if you store on an exchange use only a trusted exchange
OP says CEO is saying dont store on exchanges
but the quote of th quote (from panda) is saying th CEO is saying to store coins on exchanges..
but the actual tweet is unbiased either way. its just two if statements where the "if" is subtly implied
anyway best advice is dont use an exchange as a custodian wallet. they are not designed or insured as being custodial wallets. they are just a trading service. most exchanges have terms and conditions wrote towards exchange trading, which means expect losses and you cannot hold an exchange liable for losses [of trading] which if translating to fools using an exchange as a custodian. is also implying you cant hold the exchange liable for loses.. meaning if hacked, your screwed.
so only use an exchange to exchange. and yes expect loses. dont think your funds are insured
|
|
|
|
1.a. its more so that when a new block is added the previous/older block(s) are safer to trust as stronger. EG a transaction in a block 100 blocks ago (100 confirms) is safer than a transaction with only 1 confirm 1.b. because a block contains the hash of previous blocks then to have a valid block does require clear links that do go all the way back to the genesis block. for instance you cannot just copy ethereums block history or litecoins block history to be a bitcoin attack chain. because although their blockheights(number of blocks) are more. the genesis wont match 2. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm3. yes each tx has its own hash which is called a TXID (transaction identifier) 4. he can only ultimately alter which transactions were in a block. thats the easy part.. catching up with the network after is the harder part say blockheight was 570000 and someone wanted to edit out a tx in 569999. they would do that but then they would need to PoW mine the hash for their 569999 and then add that hash to their 5700000 then PoW hash that block. the rest of the network would probably be on 570002 at this point because while he went back everyone else continued forward so the person editing would need to catch up and race against the network hoping to get ahead so the network would accept the alteration.. which at 15% has little chance of happening 5. save as last point but much more chance. 6. in simplified terms the block header has a nonce. ASIC create a hash that is the block header and where the nonce changes. this makes the hash change. they keep changing the nonce until they find a hash that meets the difficulty requirements 7. imagine it like 15 different groups(pools) racing each other to get a block hash result that meet the rules. only one can win per block. 8. continuing from point 7. the other pools dont get anything. its like a 100m race the first one to cross the line wins.. as long as they are not found cheating |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
