I think it is time for this thread to die.
Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.
See you on the next topic.
It was never about convincing anyone but proclaiming Core victory over XT  |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is perfectly fungible. Anyone who claims otherwise is confusing economic concepts.
|
|
|
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.  Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you. Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence. It is Bitcoin and will be Bitcoin. For everything else use fiat |
|
|
|
stolen funds can always be laundered easily enough
Yes you could mix stolen coins, but at the end of the day someone somewhere is going to get tainted coins. Perhaps not the thief or scammer. There is no such things as tainted coins. |
|
|
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it. That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you. |
|
|
|
Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin
Not by themselves, perhaps, but throw a few others into the mix and the picture starts to look a little different. Larger (than 1MB) blocks will naturally provide benefit to: Anyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a payments network
VC investors
Miners
Merchants
Payment processors
Average users in general
Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to: Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class (i.e. not the average user)
Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply (i.e. not the average user)
Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain (i.e. definitely not the average user)
Pretty sure that first group will agree on a proposal before too long. We'll see if you're right about them not being an economic majority. The "picture" might look different because your fabricate it to fit your twisted view of how you believe it should work. Here's how the decision process unfolds in reality. Tier 1
Network peers (nodes) Bitcoin holders Tier 2Miners Tier 3Exchanges Tier 4Everyone else (merchants, payment processors, consumers, redditards, Fidelity & other banking parasites) TLDR; if you don't have the support of the network peers and the "bitcoin rich list" your fork goes the way of XT which goes the way of Stannis at Winterfell -> #REKT Okay Mr. " everyone else is beneath me". Whatever you say.  Why is it that anyone who absorbs MP rhetoric also inherits his colossal egotism? Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes to support a chain they can't afford to transact on, it's still a stupid plan. No one is going to support a network that doesn't support them. Either it benefits everyone, or everyone goes elsewhere and you can hodl your defunct novelty toy when the miners go elsewhere with them. It's not. You just severely lack imagination and understanding of economics. Bitcoin is the fuel for a whole ecosystem, it will not be limited to its blockchain. If your plan is for everyone to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain then we might as well just scrap the whole thing and keep our fiat. |
|
|
|
Since the next century will be one of global mass migration I think the remittance market is going to be huge also. However I think BitPay is scaling back to recover the financial loss they suffered from a recent large theft.
They had over 30M in VC funding (from what I had read) so if the loss of 2M causes them to sack nearly everyone then what happened to the other 28M? If "business was booming" then I very much doubt they would have needed to sack so many employees (and also it wasn't that recent - it happened last year from what I read). But if I were funding this I would certainly not allow the money to be used that way. I would say that the managers have to come up with 2M$. My investment is not to cover losses, it's to facilitate greater profits. A $2 million dollar hole is a radical change to the plan and needs to be fixed before going forward. I have no specific knowledge of where BitPay is at financially, so I'm just guessing. The hole has been there since late 2014. BitPay has been laying off progressively more employees all year, it's obvious their current woes are not restricted to that theft. |
|
|
|
Now, let's see, who is going to benefit from the removal of the block size limit.
1) Businesses. Yes, they are likely sitting on a decent network connection and will be able to process more txs and serve more customers.
Maybe you didn't read that BitPay has sacked most of their staff today basically because "there are hardly any customers" (at least not enough to sustain their current business model). So we should increase the block size for businesses to serve customers that actually "don't exist"? This is a "chicken and egg" problem. If you wait for business before building it, they will never come, because they will see there is nothing there. If you build it, you take a risk and they might not come. In which case, you are stuck with what you've built. In the case of a blocksize increase, you are stuck with a few lines of changed code that will cost almost nothing to deploy. You won't even be stuck with any larger blocks if no business does come, except possibly some spam. Even some spam won't necessarily be bad, because it might force the software to improve, so as to make more efficient in use of storage, bandwidth, and processing resources. Unfortunately, the bitcoin community seems to have a total lack of leadership at present. From reading many forum posts one might conclude that the bitcoin community is a foolocracy. (The more conspiratorial inclined may chose to describe the situation as the result of an organized campaign by bitcoin's enemies. No it is not a "chicken and egg" problem. What you are building is monetary gravity. By buying bitcoins and holding them you are charging a battery that stores wealth and rewards saving because of its deflationary nature. If you build it, they will come but you need not to worry about them at the present. Well who needs merchants anyway? Who Needs Merchants Anyway?
Hoarders are more important than merchants. If a restaurant downtown starts accepting bitcoins, this does not necessarily create an incentive for anybody to buy more bitcoins. Why would anyone bother if they can still just use a credit card? If you can convince a merchant to accept bitcoins and stop accepting dollars, then I’ll be impressed.
Unless a merchant is offering something that cannot be bought for dollars, or at least offering a discount, he is only benefiting Bitcoin to the extent that he encourages more hoarding. If he immediately converts the bitcoins he receives as payment into dollars, and if his customers only buy bitcoins so as to spend them at his shop shortly thereafter, then neither has much direct effect on Bitcoin’s demand. The real hero is the hoarder behind the scenes who buys from the merchant and enables him to convert his payments into dollars. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-anyYou won't even be stuck with any larger blocks if no business does come, except possibly some spam.
Maybe you've never heard the phrase "supply creates its own demand"? Case in point: Fidelity schmucks waiting to "turn on their switch" and fill the blockchain with their spammy non-monetary transactions. |
|
|
|
There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere. Huh? If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes? "MASS ADOPTION" fantasies. Don't you know that a block size increase will unleash Bitcoin to the masses. It's actually why they're not using it right now. Just the other day my grand ma was asking me "when are they going to increase this goddamn blocksize so I can spend my bitcoinz"  |
|
|
|
Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.
You love going around in circles, don't you? As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus. Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?  The economic majority is the one most interested in keeping the block size small. The XT #REKT event should have made that clear. Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin Not by themselves, perhaps, but throw a few others into the mix and the picture starts to look a little different. Larger (than 1MB) blocks will naturally provide benefit to: Anyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a payments network
VC investors
Miners
Merchants
Payment processors
Average users in general
Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to: Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class (i.e. not the average user)
Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply (i.e. not the average user)
Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain (i.e. definitely not the average user)
Pretty sure that first group will agree on a proposal before too long. We'll see if you're right about them not being an economic majority. The "picture" might look different because your fabricate it to fit your twisted view of how you believe it should work. Here's how the decision process unfolds in reality. Tier 1
Network peers (nodes) Bitcoin holders Tier 2Miners Tier 3Exchanges Tier 4Everyone else (merchants, payment processors, consumers, redditards, Fidelity & other banking parasites) TLDR; if you don't have the support of the network peers and the "bitcoin rich list" your fork goes the way of XT which goes the way of Stannis at Winterfell -> #REKT |
|
|
|
So what would happen to all of the companies that accept Bitcoin through Bitpay if Bitpay is to cease its existence? Would we all of the sudden stay without almost half of our merchants? This would suck and it would surely cause the blow to whole Bitcoin economy!
I am sure this is all connected to the recent news on how they have been hacked for almost $2 million. Nothing good will come out of this I am afraid!
Nonsense. Pure nonsense Bitcoin doesn't exist to buy game credits on Microsoft store. The reason why they have to cut costs is that barely any of their merchants are seeing any sale from Bitcoin acceptance and therefore they aren't generating any revenue whatsoever. It's quite a coincidence they decided to cut costs by sacking most of their staff straight after news of the hack got out. They must know they will lose business because some merchants will lose their trust in Bitpay. Its reputation has been damaged so badly I wonder if it can survive in the long term. According to coindesk the average daily volume of Bitpay was $435,000 in 2014. However, I can't find any information on what the average daily volume of Bitpay was in 2015, but they must still have been generating some volume before the hack was exposed. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-on-the-dark-web-the-facts/They have been laying off employees for some time now, this is not the first occurrence nor is it the last. It's obvious their business is struggling. The recent move to depart from the "always free, forever" transaction fees model is another example of this. I can't prove any numbers but I'm confident their 2015 numbers must be miserable. |
|
|
|
So what would happen to all of the companies that accept Bitcoin through Bitpay if Bitpay is to cease its existence? Would we all of the sudden stay without almost half of our merchants? This would suck and it would surely cause the blow to whole Bitcoin economy!
I am sure this is all connected to the recent news on how they have been hacked for almost $2 million. Nothing good will come out of this I am afraid!
Nonsense. Pure nonsense Bitcoin doesn't exist to buy game credits on Microsoft store. The reason why they have to cut costs is that barely any of their merchants are seeing any sale from Bitcoin acceptance and therefore they aren't generating any revenue whatsoever. |
|
|
|
So the article that I've read about BitPay's employees crying is true? No wonder they'd be crying because they lose their jobs and it's hard to find a new job nowadays. What I'm doubting is that whether they're really hacked or not (but I know there is much more than just 'hacked'). It has been confirmed that they have lost 2M$ in an email phishing scam/hack. Although this definitely did not help their cause this obviously is not the reason for the current layoff. I've also read that they reduced the number of their employees to 'cut costs' and I wonder how would they still deliver an effective operation given that they have less numbers of employees compared to what they have before. By any means, do you have a link on where you've read that they lost $2M because of the scheme you posted above? |
|
|
|
So the article that I've read about BitPay's employees crying is true? No wonder they'd be crying because they lose their jobs and it's hard to find a new job nowadays. What I'm doubting is that whether they're really hacked or not (but I know there is much more than just 'hacked'). It has been confirmed that they have lost 2M$ in an email phishing scam/hack. Although this definitely did not help their cause this obviously is not the reason for the current layoff. |
|
|
|
Well who needs merchants anyway? Who Needs Merchants Anyway?
Hoarders are more important than merchants. If a restaurant downtown starts accepting bitcoins, this does not necessarily create an incentive for anybody to buy more bitcoins. Why would anyone bother if they can still just use a credit card? If you can convince a merchant to accept bitcoins and stop accepting dollars, then I’ll be impressed.
Unless a merchant is offering something that cannot be bought for dollars, or at least offering a discount, he is only benefiting Bitcoin to the extent that he encourages more hoarding. If he immediately converts the bitcoins he receives as payment into dollars, and if his customers only buy bitcoins so as to spend them at his shop shortly thereafter, then neither has much direct effect on Bitcoin’s demand. The real hero is the hoarder behind the scenes who buys from the merchant and enables him to convert his payments into dollars. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-any |
|
|
|
well... I never sold a single bitcoin. I bought items and electronics with and for bitcoin. If I could pay all bills in Bitcoin (or more stable 2.0 coins) I would do it immediately.
Unless you immediately refund your stack of Bitcoin everytime you do that then this is considered selling your bitcoins.. |
|
|
|
|
nice little price movement this morning
|
|
|
|
90% of this forum is probably in denial about it. Also let me gloat for a minute for calling Bitpays business model unsustainable way back. itshappening.gif I still can't believe VCs were willing to plow 30M$ into this company..you truly have to wonder wtf these guys are thinking sometimes. well bitcoin was not meant to be a payment processor à la visa/paypal it seems.. *btw, pedo spotted: http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-bitcoin-broker-and-the-13-year-old-girl-in-the-biki-1563202590ewwwwww what a creep.  |
|
|
|
90% of this forum is probably in denial about it. Also let me gloat for a minute for calling Bitpays business model unsustainable way back. itshappening.gif I still can't believe VCs were willing to plow 30M$ into this company..you truly have to wonder wtf these guys are thinking sometimes. |
|
|
|
Also let me gloat for a minute for calling Bitpays business model unsustainable way back.
What can possible be unsustainable with any payment processor business model? One that claims 0% fees on transactions? Surely you're kidding... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
