Has anyone ever talked about compressing the blocks?
Dunno... What about using pointers? The question would be where do you store the stuff pointed to? there's already some miners that use a method of compressing blocks. The p2p protocol presently only supports propagation of solved blocks in full; i.e., blocks are not compressed.
However, the Corallo Relay Network does support a sort of compression. Rather than transmitting all the transactions in a solved blocks, since most the other miners know about them already, it just transmits indices that refer to each transaction (sort of like a map for how the TXs fit in the block). Greg Maxwell claims that the Corallo Relay Network attains a coding gain of about 250 (1 MB is compressed to about 4 kilobytes); however, I believe it is less in practice.
Techniques like invertible bloom lookup tables (IBLTs) could also be used to compress solved blocks in the future; Rusty Russell is presently researching this possibility.
That's not compression. |
|
|
|
I understand that you don't want to give an accurate answer, we are just speculating.
Could we reach in a decade from now to 6 figures, what do you think ?
Regarding the 21M cap, I've two question
1. Can this cap be altered in any means ?
2. I know we are talking here about scarcity, but remember that the future is for micropayments along with Internet of Things and as you know, bitcoin is much divisble, so how will the scarcity help here when few satoshies for example could buy you something you need which costs few dollars for example
Yes I do think we could reach 6 figures within next decade. 1. Never. Ever. Ever2. Scarcity is in reference to the 21M cap. The importance is that the value of everyone's holding will never be diluted like they are with fiat. It's not about the divisibility of a single Bitcoin. If each satoshis are worth too much for micro-transactions then we can adjust the system so that we can use sub-satoshis. I think you have bolded the wrong question because my OCD is killing me  1. Why do you think we may reach 6 figures in 10 years from now ? In other words, how do you see bitcoin from technological perspective in a decade from now ? 2. Could you please elaborate more on the bolded part of the above "2." part, as I still didn't get what you want to say. Never ever was in reference to your question about altering the cap. This would corrupt the deflationary aspect of Bitcoin which is one of its main property. 6 figures is probable because existing financial system is headed for ruins and Bitcoin could eventually be the only safe refuge for wealth out of the reach of totalitarian governments. Bitcoin itself won't be much different 10 years from now. Layers will be built on top of it and no one can pretend to have the imagination to suggest what use might come out of these. Think sidechains, payment channels (Lightning Network), IoT and machine to machine transactions, etc, etc. |
|
|
|
Bump! Anyone else going  |
|
|
|
Thank you for watching the topic and keep on-track with me.
As you mentioned Gold and it's used as a store of wealth "agree with what you said about it", do you see Bitcoin as a store of wealth also ?
Can I say that investing in bitcoin's blockchain is investing in bitcoin but in "in-direct" way ? In other words, what benefits/harms bitcoin's blockchain also benefits/harms bitcoin itself ?
Bitcoin is a digital version and an improvement on gold on almost every aspects so yes Bitcoin is a store of wealth and arguably the best that's ever existed. Investing in Bitcoin's blockchain is indeed an indirect investment in Bitcoin but also one that is a little more currency agnostic (it does not necessarily depends or is directly related to the success of Bitcoin). I see you are confident about bitcoin and this makes me happy  In 5 years till a decade from now, where you see bitcoin in terms of technology and price ? I cannot say for sure but just so as to entertain our little circlejerk let me suggest that 5 years from now ONE Bitcoin should be out of the reach of a good majority of people living on this planet. Just remember there are only 21,000,000. Gotta catch em all  I understand that you don't want to give an accurate answer, we are just speculating. Could we reach in a decade from now to 6 figures, what do you think ?
Regarding the 21M cap, I've two question 1. Can this cap be altered in any means ? 2. I know we are talking here about scarcity, but remember that the future is for micropayments along with Internet of Things and as you know, bitcoin is much divisble, so how will the scarcity help here when few satoshies for example could buy you something you need which costs few dollars for example Yes I do think we could reach 6 figures within next decade. 1. Never. Ever. Ever2. Scarcity is in reference to the 21M cap. The importance is that the value of everyone's holding will never be diluted like they are with fiat. It's not about the divisibility of a single Bitcoin. If each satoshis are worth too much for micro-transactions then we can adjust the system so that we can use sub-satoshis. |
|
|
|
More seriously..
Bitcoin's value proposition [..... more trilema/MP gypsy crap...]
You need to have the IQ of an amoeba to put any value in that shit. I thought you were dead  I was happy Getting a little more difficult to troll after theymos made sure your sock puppets couldn't share with us your library of gay men enjoying themselves heh  |
|
|
|
Thank you for watching the topic and keep on-track with me.
As you mentioned Gold and it's used as a store of wealth "agree with what you said about it", do you see Bitcoin as a store of wealth also ?
Can I say that investing in bitcoin's blockchain is investing in bitcoin but in "in-direct" way ? In other words, what benefits/harms bitcoin's blockchain also benefits/harms bitcoin itself ?
Bitcoin is a digital version and an improvement on gold on almost every aspects so yes Bitcoin is a store of wealth and arguably the best that's ever existed. Investing in Bitcoin's blockchain is indeed an indirect investment in Bitcoin but also one that is a little more currency agnostic (it does not necessarily depends or is directly related to the success of Bitcoin). I see you are confident about bitcoin and this makes me happy In 5 years till a decade from now, where you see bitcoin in terms of technology and price ? I cannot say for sure but just so as to entertain our little circlejerk let me suggest that 5 years from now ONE Bitcoin should be out of the reach of a good majority of people living on this planet. Just remember there are only 21,000,000. Gotta catch em all |
|
|
|
it wont stop there
forking for big blocks this is just a test
they want me convincing all you diehard fans to let them double supply in the midst of the next bubble around this time next year.
You're laughing but that's what's awaiting anyone stupid enough to get on the XT train. That and "assurance contracts", "black/redlists", rich tax, etc, etc. |
|
|
|
Thank you for watching the topic and keep on-track with me.
As you mentioned Gold and it's used as a store of wealth "agree with what you said about it", do you see Bitcoin as a store of wealth also ?
Can I say that investing in bitcoin's blockchain is investing in bitcoin but in "in-direct" way ? In other words, what benefits/harms bitcoin's blockchain also benefits/harms bitcoin itself ?
Bitcoin is a digital version and an improvement on gold on almost every aspects so yes Bitcoin is a store of wealth and arguably the best that's ever existed. Investing in Bitcoin's blockchain is indeed an indirect investment in Bitcoin but also one that is a little more currency agnostic (it does not necessarily depends or is directly related to the success of Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit. let say bitcoin fee go up and poeple start using LTC to do small payments LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  thats right cryptonic value. That's a lot of if Let's say Bitcoin fee go up And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity. See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin. i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.
i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk and i can't help but think this is no a good solution For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid) I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop. i told you why i'm bearish, using payment channels sounds complex as fuck and there is talk of mitigating risk is some cases. this is nuts... https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49smulti sig refund TX bla bla bla sign here here here and here ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND its gone! bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use the payment channel properly and at the end of the day it still makes a fucking TX on the blockchain. this is insane. Yes it does sound insane because you are an impressionable noob who is seemingly oblivious to the way technology progress. Don't worry, much more i ntelligent people will make it trivial to use and abstract all that complexity for you. You just have to be patient *Satoshi introduces Bitcoin* *Adam: that's insane, bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use Bitcoin properly* *Satoshi: you're right, let's scrap the whole thing* I hope so but i'm not optimistic That's unlike you. Sounds to me like you're pushing an agenda. Who paid you ?  |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit. let say bitcoin fee go up and poeple start using LTC to do small payments LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property thats right cryptonic value. That's a lot of if Let's say Bitcoin fee go up And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity. See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin. i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.
i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk and i can't help but think this is no a good solution For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid) I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop. i told you why i'm bearish, using payment channels sounds complex as fuck and there is talk of mitigating risk is some cases. this is nuts... https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49smulti sig refund TX bla bla bla sign here here here and here ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND its gone! bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use the payment channel properly and at the end of the day it still makes a fucking TX on the blockchain. this is insane. Yes it does sound insane because you are an impressionable noob who is seemingly oblivious to the way technology progresses. Don't worry, much more intelligent people will make it trivial to use and abstract all that complexity for you. You just have to be patient *Satoshi introduces Bitcoin* *Adam: that's insane, bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use Bitcoin properly* *Satoshi: you're right, let's scrap the whole thing* |
|
|
|
Hello,
In the past few days, I've came across a lot of news about some financial companies and organizations investing in bitcoin's blockchain.
The question now is, how will this affect bitcoin, specially the price ?
On the other hand, if the investment is in another blockchain, would this still benefit bitcoin ?
Thank you.
in my opinion, its the "beginning of the end" for btc. I mean lots of companies are saying specifically that they are interested in, or developing similar blockchain software, but NONE have any interest in btc itself. I see a lot of people comparing btc to the early internet, well it may be like the early internet, but probably more like "netscape" or "alta-vista" if you remember those. Once powerful tools, now relics of the early internet. This boils down to a common misconception of what Bitcoin's strength is: not the payment system Bitcoin will be fine. It is digital gold, the scarcest & most secure crypto-commodity. All these blockchain investements will create crypto-rails within the banking system that will allow for liquidity to more easily enter Bitcoin. So yes, it does benefit Bitcoin. How brg, I still can't get it, could you please break it down for me ? How...? The banking system will never adopt Bitcoin's low level protocol for their infrastructure for obvious engineering and strategical reasons. It isn't efficient, not very flexible, short on features and most importantly : not private. It is entirely reasonable for them to find interest in and leverage the technology for their own use case. Their adoption of the blockchain technology will allow capital to flow around the system with much less friction. This will essentially create accessible ramps for capital to flow into Bitcoin. All what you said makes sense. Why this will essentially create accessible ramps for capital to flow into Bitcoin ? And another question please, your talking started about banks and bitcoin, why did you chose ? Why not mass adoption from the masses for example ? You need to understand current context. If you wanna buy Bitcoin right now you need to fund an account at Coinbase or other exchanges using traditional financial ramps. These are slow, sometimes expensive and not practical: they create a lot of friction for someone who'd like to invest into Bitcoin. Especially when considering important amounts (millions, billions). Let's fast forward to five years from now: banks start looking a lot more like software companies. Adoption of the blockchain has eliminated a considerable amount of bureaucracy and general unproductive processes. Imagine that using this newly developed infrastructure you are able to convert your fiat to BTC straight from your bank account and even withdraw it to a personal wallet. This is just an example and doesn't go into details of how this would work for institutional investors but surely you can understand that once all financial systems are supported by blockchains then it gets much easier to move capital around. This is one of the issue with Bitcoin right now: the lack of on-ramps. That's why you see the Winklevoss creating an exchange and an ETF: because we need better ways integrate Bitcoin with the existing financial system so that value can easily move in and move out. Perfect. Now I have question popped in my mind, why would investors invest in bitcoin ? Doesn't investing in blockchain technology makes more sense ? In another words, why would bitcoin gather investors attention ? Bitcoin has a different value proposition. While its technology and the models of payment system it introduced are interesting, the way they are currently implemented in Bitcoin is primitive and very basic (in relation with most recent progress in this area). What Bitcoin excels at is being a sound form of money. Think of it as digital gold. Gold was never valued for its industrial use. It maintained value throughout history as a store of wealth used to hedge against devalued government currencies. In the same way, Bitcoin, as it is, offers unparalleled protection of one's wealth. If increasingly more people start trusting Bitcoin to secure their money then it makes sense to invest in it at this early stage in its history. Cases like Cyprus and Greece are early indicators that the system is starting to collapse and shows that in these scenarios your money stored in banks is not secured from the hands of the governments of the world who, make no mistake, will reach for anything they can grab to keep themselves afloat once they start sinking. I do expect that a whole ecosystem will be built on top Bitcoin and compete with some banks blockchains but we are not there yet. |
|
|
|
Hello,
In the past few days, I've came across a lot of news about some financial companies and organizations investing in bitcoin's blockchain.
The question now is, how will this affect bitcoin, specially the price ?
On the other hand, if the investment is in another blockchain, would this still benefit bitcoin ?
Thank you.
in my opinion, its the "beginning of the end" for btc. I mean lots of companies are saying specifically that they are interested in, or developing similar blockchain software, but NONE have any interest in btc itself. I see a lot of people comparing btc to the early internet, well it may be like the early internet, but probably more like "netscape" or "alta-vista" if you remember those. Once powerful tools, now relics of the early internet. This boils down to a common misconception of what Bitcoin's strength is: not the payment system Bitcoin will be fine. It is digital gold, the scarcest & most secure crypto-commodity. All these blockchain investements will create crypto-rails within the banking system that will allow for liquidity to more easily enter Bitcoin. So yes, it does benefit Bitcoin. How brg, I still can't get it, could you please break it down for me ? How...? The banking system will never adopt Bitcoin's low level protocol for their infrastructure for obvious engineering and strategical reasons. It isn't efficient, not very flexible, short on features and most importantly : not private. It is entirely reasonable for them to find interest in and leverage the technology for their own use case. Their adoption of the blockchain technology will allow capital to flow around the system with much less friction. This will essentially create accessible ramps for capital to flow into Bitcoin. All what you said makes sense. Why this will essentially create accessible ramps for capital to flow into Bitcoin ? And another question please, your talking started about banks and bitcoin, why did you chose ? Why not mass adoption from the masses for example ? You need to understand current context. If you wanna buy Bitcoin right now you need to fund an account at Coinbase or other exchanges using traditional financial ramps. These are slow, sometimes expensive and not practical: they create a lot of friction for someone who'd like to invest into Bitcoin. Especially when considering important amounts (millions, billions). Let's fast forward to five years from now: banks start looking a lot more like software companies. Adoption of the blockchain has eliminated a considerable amount of bureaucracy and general unproductive processes. Imagine that using this newly developed infrastructure you are able to convert your fiat to BTC straight from your bank account and even withdraw it to a personal wallet. This is just an example and doesn't go into details of how this would work for institutional investors but surely you can understand that once all financial systems are supported by blockchains then it gets much easier to move capital around. This is one of the issue with Bitcoin right now: the lack of on-ramps. That's why you see the Winklevoss creating an exchange and an ETF: because we need better ways integrate Bitcoin with the existing financial system so that value can easily move in and move out. |
|
|
|
That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.
Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.
Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me). If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee). Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted). Did someone say Starbucks "Credits"? I think having the large businesses using their own coin would be interesting.. would allow a developed sidechain coin like CRE to find a niche! In terms of bitcoin becoming more centralized, that's just inevitable as large entities see different ways to exploit Bitcoin for profits. Not everyone cares about the future of the coin, many just care about their return on investment. Ethereum lets people build their own tokens on the network. Could easily be done with sidechains as well. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit. let say bitcoin fee go up and poeple start using LTC to do small payments LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property thats right cryptonic value. That's a lot of if Let's say Bitcoin fee go up And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity. See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin. i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.
i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk and i can't help but think this is no a good solution For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid) I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit. let say bitcoin fee go up and poeple start using LTC to do small payments LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property thats right cryptonic value. Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one. The primary value proposition is security by decentralization. If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending! ALL crypto have security by decentralization. dogecoin included. bitcoin has the most for many reasons start taking away some of these reasons ( aka low fees ) and see what happens cryptonic value = decentralization * security * usage / usage_cost; so be carefull fucking with usage_cost Capital has not poured into Bitcoin because "low fees". You are mistaken  Well anyway, Bitcoin vs. Dogecoin, may the best man win. Have you converted your BTCs yet? that like your opinion man mirco TX is something bitcoin did better than anyone else end users don't give a fuck about decentralization they care about costs/usefulness. Again: wealth all over the world is not restricted so much by usage cost as it is by political friction. Bitcoin removes the latter but makes no promises of staying cheap. That's not a problem because the rich (the ones who owns the resources in the economy) are not deterred by transactions cost. Bitcoin is not an "app". The "end users" you are thinking of provide little value to an economy. This economy will not be built on the back of adoption by the mainstream herd but by rich people, as is the case with any economy worth talking about. Stop with this obsession of Bitcoin only being a tool for the common man. Your focus is on the wrong things. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit. let say bitcoin fee go up and poeple start using LTC to do small payments LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property thats right cryptonic value. Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one. The primary value proposition is security by decentralization. If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending! ALL crypto have security by decentralization. dogecoin included. bitcoin has the most for many reasons start taking away some of these reasons ( aka low fees ) and see what happens cryptonic value = decentralization * security * usage / usage_cost; so be carefull fucking with usage_cost Capital has not poured into Bitcoin because "low fees". You are mistaken Well anyway, Bitcoin vs. Dogecoin, may the best man win. Have you converted your BTCs yet? |
|
|
|
Hello,
In the past few days, I've came across a lot of news about some financial companies and organizations investing in bitcoin's blockchain.
The question now is, how will this affect bitcoin, specially the price ?
On the other hand, if the investment is in another blockchain, would this still benefit bitcoin ?
Thank you.
in my opinion, its the "beginning of the end" for btc. I mean lots of companies are saying specifically that they are interested in, or developing similar blockchain software, but NONE have any interest in btc itself. I see a lot of people comparing btc to the early internet, well it may be like the early internet, but probably more like "netscape" or "alta-vista" if you remember those. Once powerful tools, now relics of the early internet. This boils down to a common misconception of what Bitcoin's strength is: not the payment system Bitcoin will be fine. It is digital gold, the scarcest & most secure crypto-commodity. All these blockchain investements will create crypto-rails within the banking system that will allow for liquidity to more easily enter Bitcoin. So yes, it does benefit Bitcoin. How brg, I still can't get it, could you please break it down for me ? How...? The banking system will never adopt Bitcoin's low level protocol for their infrastructure for obvious engineering and strategical reasons. It isn't efficient, not very flexible, short on features and most importantly : not private. It is entirely reasonable for them to find interest in and leverage the technology for their own use case. Their adoption of the blockchain technology will allow capital to flow around the system with much less friction. This will essentially create accessible ramps for capital to flow into Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit. let say bitcoin fee go up and poeple start using LTC to do small payments LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property thats right cryptonic value. Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one. The primary value proposition is security by decentralization. If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending! |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit. let say bitcoin fee go up and poeple start using LTC to do small payments LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property thats right cryptonic value. That's a lot of if Let's say Bitcoin fee go up And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity. See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive |
|
|
|
If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. Why don't you? VISA sound much more secure than this silly fragile network that got spammed so easily and can be forked anytime don't you? Do you see me complaining? Did the spam "attack" cause any problem with the network? Seems to me it performed like a champ. In fact I'm perfectly fine with using VISA indeed, Bitcoin really sucks for retail transactions +10 minutes confirmation time? I can't get jiggy with that! Can be forked anytime? Yea we all saw how well that went with XT Why do you sound so butthurt |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
