There is a long list of sites in another thread.

It probably is not worth the time clicking through it though.

... Looks like a new client isn't going to fix this.

I guess it's time to rethink whether bitcoin will ever go mainstream.

Paying extra transaction fees doesn't make anything go faster. It merely transfers your position on the waiting list, driving up transaction costs for everyone.

Remember, it's the people, it's the miners that are doing this...

Future-proofing and to allow people to gain more confidence by allowing transactions to occur faster. At the moment, you can only allow for 360,000 transactions a day. That's going to be way small. If you want people to jump in, the developers better fix it or at least do away with the 1MB limit.

Paying extra transaction fees doesn't make anything go faster. It merely transfers your position on the waiting list, driving up transaction costs for everyone.

Remember, we the users of bitcoin are causing this problem. Why don't we just fix it by rolling out a new client.

QQ hasn't been shutdown. It's gone off-market but it still retains a stable value.

But yes, China will most likely do the same with the cryptocurrencies.

There were no enemies of bitcoin.

The real enemies are us here in forum, we the people collectively are the enemies of bitcoin.

We drive the price up and crash it back down. No one else can do it except the market.

We scare away the newbies, we make excuses to why the blockchain is not confirming, we don't provide solutions or a calculator to compute transaction fees, and much much much more.

In return they (savvy investors, mums and dads, and elitists) will punish "we the people" by ignoring bitcoins and then the value will plunge to zero.

The governments don't even need to regulate it, we will destroy bitcoin ourselves.

And what does big money do? It speculates. It goes into housing, gold, and other assets with a goal to seek a return.

What else do you think big money does? It doesn't just sit around... It goes and seeks opportunities, in finance terms, it seeks alpha.

Speculators are the market, big money is the market. It's like when Max Keiser lost millions of dollars because he was the market. Same thing, if we are all the market, then we are all part of the destruction of value.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40xyqt0DidY

Who else do you think the market is? It's us. It's no conspiracy theory. We are all speculating.

I would say rather than the chain being too big, the CHAIN is TOO SMALL!!!

Transactions are taking too long!

Increase the minimum blocksize to 10mb and maximum to 1 gigabyte.

Stick with Alex Jones and Peter Schiff.

Max Keiser is just hyping the cryptocoins to make money.

Furthermore, false flags happen all the time around us. We just don't pay attention to them. They usually don't affect us.
In fact rather than less false flags, we should assume more should occur as people come to the realisation that agencies and even small organisations (bikies and gangs) have the opportunity to launch one!

Why would they want to do it anyway?

The chinese already have qq coins. The chinese regard this as "wealth" with less volatility.

The price is going down because speculators are cashing out, not because of scaremongering.

YAY!

A lot of old timers are used to sending transactions fee free. That's going to be a problem. Furthermore, the whole idea of using bitcoin is for reduced transaction fees. Why wouldn't people use something else instead? Well, they are, for anyone who has been living under a rock.  PerfectMoney, SolidTrustPay, Payza, EGOPay, Paypal, Western Union and more.

If you think it will go mainstream, think again, 1 million transactions a day. The block size would be huge. It's going to break something along the way. Then the miners will eventually end up with another problem, "too big a blockchain to fit an average HDD".

Western Union conducts 2.5 million transactions a day. According to the blockchain size the maximum transactions per day should be 360000. So shouldn't we go back and look at this chart and revalue bitcoin as $100 as it can only capture 10x less market share?.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/17/bitcoin-bubble-or-value.aspx

$100 price target sounds about right considering it can't capture the market.

Some people state that consider the transaction fees on bitcoin are 10x less than traditional means. This means they can only earn 10x less revenue. The price target is now $10. These are good valuation methods proven by "value investors" such as Warren Buffet, undoubtedly also fool.com.

Anyway, back to the fees issue:

How would you know what to price the transaction fee at if it keeps changing? Maybe someone can create a calculator but it's going to have to happen in real-time. The idea of buying a 8 yuan beer with a bitcoin is going to get really expensive especially if you have to add on a transaction fee. I wonder how that business is coping, it was on the news recently if anyone remembers. Will the business owners wait 9 hours to receive their money when it takes less than a minute to chug down a beer?

We might as well go back to using things like e-gold, liberty reserve, stormpay, perfect money, okpay and more.

That's the whole idea of digital currency. A transaction platform where exchange of currencies can occur at a lower cost. I don't think it was originally intended to be a store of value, you can store that in other assets. Thus, a question remains why it was setup in the first place, was it unintentional or deliberate?

One of the most important reasons why bitcoin is said to overtake western union is the transaction fee problem. So, why not a platform that allows this and fixes all the problems associated with cryptocurrencies. The fact is we will likely see something that will mean cryptocurrencies won't go mainstream. If there is an easier alternative, that will take off at the disadvantage of crypto.

Don't forget, before bitcoin, there were other options, take a look at whether those options really are easier to use.

A good example is tencent's QQ coins, reasonably fixed exchange rates, good trading liquidity. That's what's going to blow a big hole into bitcoin. Right now it's just a speculative game in bitcoin.

Can I fire a worker from the graveyard or city council and move them to production?

Don't worry, just speculate.

Don't use it to transact anonymously if your beliefs are correct.

I hope the network will be able to cope when bitcoin goes mainstream. I assume this will mean we will see something like 1 million (approaching fast) or 1 billion transactions a day.

http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

That's assuming that they could be. It is more likely that they probably aren't...

You can fight speculation with other speculation, but unless you are in contact people with people that specifically state that they are using bitcoin. It would be reasonable to believe that they wouldn't be using it. How can you assume that you understand the type of risk adverse friends that I have? Most people are risk adverse, and do not engage in risk seeking behaviours.

So nevertheless, the problem is that it can't be proved anyone is using something, but neither can you prove that they aren't unless they come forward. However, you can confer that more people are likely not to be using it due to the flaws with cryptography and future negative prospects. Those who understand the issues behind the idea. You would think it's biased against your argument.

The fact is that there are more problems with bitcoin being an "investment".

Take a look around you, "most" people aren't using bitcoin. Go ask your academic if they are using it. They aren't!

You can draw a venn diagram and look at:
People using cryptocoins
People not using cryptocoins
Within that subset:
Computer scientists using cryptocoins
Computer scientists not using cryptocoins


Basically your just trying to hide the parts of my argument that you cannot go against. This is merely selective bias.

Sure we might have "some" computer scientists using it, but there aren't many that are invested in it.


Why do I use the risk adverse argument?

Well, think about it, if you aren't speculating, wouldn't you be indifferent to holding cash compared to cryptocoins? Why would you hold crypto? That's one less person who is investing in it. Most computer scientists are more interested in the art of computer science. Gee look at people like Richard Stallman. No phone, nothing. That's the type of hardcore user that has no use for cryptocoins. They aren't interested in chasing returns or speculating. So unless you can provide an example where investing and speculating trumps, then I just don't see it. Sorry.

The problem is most of us probably have nothing to worry about, but wake up one day and one of the big wallets might be empty!

But what happens to the value then?

Should we be trying to increase the number of workers?

What do you gain from quoting the comment? If I removed the friends part, your argument loses all it's value.

Have you looked at how many millennium puzzles are being solved recently? It doesn't even matter if it is solved or not. P will equal to NP eventually over time. Don't you see the problem?

Seriously, most hard-core computer scientists or mathematicians aren't using bitcoin.

Can you name any that are?

I wonder if you can challenge the restock fee?

Onerous conditions in a contract are invalid.

In Australia, Amazon would have a hard time.

The problem is that it is probably too late to enter the game.

Remember that article about $27 becoming $1 million? Well, they purchased bitcoins at under 0.5 cents each...

If you invested $27 now, the upside is very small. You have to wait for the price to go up to $1,000 before you even double. It's just not worthwhile risking it for a black swan event and it will most likely happen again. If you are wanting to achieve 10x, that requires the price to reach $10,000 a bitcoin which would make people think, "hmm... nice car or bitcoin", then it won't sustain it. So most newbies are stuck in the trap about where the speculative motions will take them.

Just think about the upside, it's almost negligible, yet so many people are piling into the coins just to hoard. Eventually it goes pop. What for? For a small gain? The big players already have a lot of value created. Max Keiser, $5 buy in. Compare that to now $500. If he adds more money now, that would be crazy and nonsensical. You won't achieve the same levels of returns regardless of what everyone thinks.

It's all in the numbers, If you think $100,000 is normal for a bitcoin, and you want to chase Max Keiser level returns, then yeah go for it, but I think most of us would laugh. Don't be mislead, calculate the returns and where you think the price will be. Are you willing to take the risk?