FULL on-chain "scaling" is absolutely ridiculous. What's next? enable micropayments also on-chain? TX's of less than 1cent being replicated over thousands of full nodes and stored for centuries?
Ridiculous.
One of the primary points of bitcoin is that anyone can send any amount they want to anyone they want with no busybody middlemen deciding what constitutes a proper and legal transfer. Someone wants to pay a fee to send dust, that's his business and working as intended. That's what people seem to keep forgetting. It's not free. Well Satoshi didn't say "we'll include your dust as long as you pay for it"... more like fuck dust txs... Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
You'll also note he talks about an AGGREGATING MECHANISM...  |
|
|
|
No risk avers business will follow this concept, where there is proof now that easy peasy on chain scaling works and there is no logic to friggle some crap around bitcoin to give room for higher risk solutions.
Bitcoin (and all that already high energy usage) on chain should be used up to its limits first and than off chain solutions have time to prove safety over same period of time bitcoin did.
The only unexplored limit I can think of right now, is some stuff I've read about compressed blocks, which is essentially a system of different representation of the data in terms of network transmission and data storage, which might reduce block size by around 30%. It's like a custom compression scheme tailored for bitcoin, instead of relying in a compression library that might have vulnerabilities. It's clearly an orchestrated pump if you take a look when it started and how it is moving. You've got to be out of your right mind to actually want BCH. I don't like the price of Bitcoin at the moment.
I would call it "orchestrated accumulation of coins". The accumulator is even leaving the market to dip so he can get the order books to his liking before proceeding to buy. I don't know who he is / who they are, but they do have pretty deep pockets  |
|
|
|
I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks". Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it? It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH. Why on earth BCC hina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN All these forks are attacks on bitcoin. That's the only point there is. Bitcoin's design was intended to be 1 cpu / 1 vote in order to keep the network decentralized. This aspect of the design started to fail, initially with pooled mining and then with ASIC-hardware that was built and kept private for companies to mine. In other words, it's not like a cpu or gpu where anyone can go buy it and start mining. Currently few companies create specialized hardware and by extension these few companies exercise centralized control over bitcoin mining. There is a market failure in terms of ASIC hardware getting sold. Bitcoin devs, bitcoin users and bitcoin investors (who understand a thing or two) decided to look the other way, as to not be "contentious" about the whole situation, nor piss on the investments that all those miners have done. The rationale was "as long as the miners play nice, we'll pretend that Bitcoin's proof-of-work isn't centralized". No-one tried to find or implement a solution to this centralization issue. I'm not talking about a simple POW change to sha512 that will again bring the same issue in a few months time, but something more fundamental. And as we were all pretending everything is fine, a few compromised (?) devs like Garzik (you can see what he was writing here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/ and what he currently does with Segwit2x), Gavin, etc, started pissing on the ecosystem along with some of the miners. The next plan is to take over the chain with a 51%, and redefine what Bitcoin is - putting it under their direct control for any future protocol changes, or even the software we run. They will claim that they are following the vision of Satoshi, when Satoshi was pretty clear on how well planned and unanimous changes must be, not to mention his opinions on competing implementations. Segwit2x is not BCH. It's not "free coins" in a parallel chain. Things are gonna get ugly if they decide to proceed. And let's be honest here. When Bitcoin is going so good, with valuation of near 4.5k USD, and people want to attack the main chain in a contentious way (=shitstorm), I can't really see them as having good intentions. Perhaps they stand to profit more from the destruction of value by positioning their "options" accordingly. After all if you can control the "good news" and "bad news" of a market, then you can benefit financially. And this is what they've been doing with all the forking scenarios, fud, or real since the price was at 200$. They create the news and the sentiment. They have become a market force that indirectly dictates prices. "Oh they are forking it, sell"... "Oh they cancelled the fork, onwards to 10k!!!", etc etc. This is bullshit on so many levels it's not even funny. No wonder Segwit2x was decided in a closed-meeting with financial companies. |
|
|
|
I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks". Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it? It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH. |
|
|
|
I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks". That "just" is pretty important. Bitcoin is going to ~4mb per block (indirect max capacity since the data are stored in a 1+3 manner) once Segwit activates, plus LN on top of that. It's not like 8 vs 1. It's 8 vs 4(+LN). Ethereum was made after BTC. It has fast blocks (issued in seconds). Their devs know about scaling issues, etc etc, yet their network is literally stuck when an ICO happens. Exchanges are shutting down ETH transactions (!) due to load. What's their proposed solution? Bigger blocks? No, they have accumulated too much bloat and it didn't even solve anything, so LN-type extensions it is ("Plasma") to help with computational and storage scaling. ... Incredibly high amount of transactions can be committed on this Plasma chain with minimal data hitting the root blockchain. Any participant can transfer funds to anyone, including transfers to participants not in the existing set of participants. These transfers can pay into and withdraw (with some time delay and proofs) funds in the root blockchain’s native coin(s)/token(s). ... http://plasma.io/plasma.pdf |
|
|
|
I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.
Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks". |
|
|
|
Hm maybe impact on the price
Were again at the start from yesterdays correction..
It looks like a artificial dump. Several 50btc selling walls... Roger Ver? who knows?? but looks like not have enough to trigger a bigger dump thought I think there is an accumulation pattern where the big buyer(s?) doesn't want to be very predictable, in the sense that if he buys all the time, traders will front-run him with longs, making his purchases more costly. So he leaves it a bit to correct or even dive, by those taking profits, so that the order books fill-up a bit, perhaps even hoping that shorts get build up by shorters believing that "this might be where the big correction is triggered". Once the price goes 100-200-300$ lower, he then presses the button again and buys everything. Or something like that... |
|
|
|
People anticipating the difficulty drop ? Eh? Bitcoin Difficulty: 923,233,068,449 Estimated Next Difficulty: 933,017,161,037 (+1.06%) |
|
|
|
A shittily cast bronze rendition of Slender Man for 140 mn? Wow, high end art is so weird. I think some of the ultra-rich are just perverse. They like the idea that they are so filthy rich that they can somehow assign value to art through their money - and preserving a large part of their wealth by doing so, because once something has been sold for the X amount, a kind-of "market price" precedent has been set. You can see this in meaningless art. You can even see it in ...SHIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit"In August 2016, at an art auction in Milan, one of the tins sold for a new world record of €275,000, including auction fees."Yes, they can literally pump the price of shit and pretend it's art. They can even mock the mockery of the "art-is-shit" meaning, by giving extra value to the shit. We are talking about pretty high levels of perversion. |
|
|
|
Target price 1 BTC = $9840... The Silver Eagle monster box: 500-Coin Silver American Eagle Monster Box (Sealed) / Any Qty: $9,840.00  |
|
|
|
You seem to be asserting, in part, that bitcoin's value could be somewhere in the gold parity (john mcafee eat my dick) territory, and I think that there is some truth in that, and even with ongoing decent exponential adoption, if someone is actually good for his word, we are likely going to witness some dick eating because another 100x in 3 years, just seems way too astronomical - even though it could be more reasonably achievable in a longer period of time, maybe 10-ish years, possibly?
It is difficult to determine for sure in terms of how fast prices could rise, but there are likely to be continued bitcoin sabotage attempts in the coming years, and also manipulations to trick people out of their coins, and surely some kinds of greater developments of user-friendliness need to evolve in order for bitcoin to really achieve gold parity price territory, no?
I think Bitcoin is short-to-mid-term good for maybe 5-10% of Gold's marketcap - not marketcap parity. 10%-gold-marketcap-levels would put it around Apple stock territory (~800bn). Mcafee is probably exaggerating but he can always say "ok maybe we didn't get from 2k to XXXk but hey, it beat most stocks and other investments by far... One of the reasons that I don't see gold parity (btc reaching ~8 trillion marketcap) is that the fiat supply is too low. You need to dump tremendous amount of fiat into bitcoin to reach these kind of levels. We'd need some kind of inflationary boom, in multiple large countries simultaneously, sustained for a few years. |
|
|
|
One thing is that the past 21 months have been so fucking amazing - really from $250 to $4190 - and even the 80% increase in the past couple of weeks. Amen to that. A life-changing 21 months. And the real amazing thing about Bitcoin is that this rocket is just getting off the launchpad. We haven't even broke free of the tower yet, if you consider the bigger picture. Yep, and it's not at all surprising. To put things into perspective, Bitcoin hasn't even attained ...1% of gold's marketcap - which is the prime alternative to fiat as a store of value (excluding real estate). In fact the entire bitcoin marketcap is worth just a few months of gold mining (annual production of 3200 tons is valued at ~135bn $). Again, Bitcoin's price seems high only due to the 21mn coins effect. Had it been, say, 21 billion coins, nobody would consider BTC having reached some kind of lofty target at ...4$. Yet things would be exactly the same, marketcap wise. |
|
|
|
Why is anyone talking about hard disks?
That's like devoting 90% of your effort to choosing the paint job of your Mars Lander rather than how you're going to get there and survive.
Storage has never been an issue. It's the bandwidth and the indexing among other things.
In some cases ISP caps as well. Some ISP caps right now are lower than what you'd need for a full blockchain sync - let alone running a node in your basement. |
|
|
|
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that we are seriously talking about prices like this (and being realistic)... bitcoin has come a long way
In a sense, not really. People still don't understand bitcoin and why price in the thousands is low. Satoshi put an arbitrary number of coins (21mn) out there, and that's where the price is coming from. Had the supply been 21 Billion, instead of million coins, nobody would bother on whether bitcoin is 1-2-3-5-10$. It would seem "cheap". People would say, wow one day it can go to 100$ or 500$ (the equivalent of 100k or 500k for a 21mn supply) and nobody would say "you are greedy"... But because there are 21mn coins, the 5$ equivalent is 5000$ in our case. And still people don't get it and appear impressed by "high prices". Bitcoin is like Berkshire stocks which cost a quarter of a million bucks without them being "expensive" - but rather as a consequence of the low number of stocks: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/brk-a?ltr=1 ...if people don't get Berkshire pricing, it's unlikely they'll get Bitcoin pricing. And most of the time, they don't. Even those in Bitcoin don't get it. |
|
|
|
BTC scarcity getting appreciated https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6swgsf/nearly_impossible_now_to_reach_one_btc...
I spend each month on buying btc but the price goes up and i never get closer to owning one btc
The value i hold does go up and has been going up so i am not complaining but the arbitrary amount of one btc seems like it is getting further away. Owning a full coin is already out of reach for so many people less fortunate than myself
...
No kidding... Not even millionaires can own 1 bitcoin: There are 33 million millionaires on the planet, so if they all wanted bitcoins, they'd have to settle for 0.5btc each... and that's without factoring whales, lost coins, institutional investors, etc etc |
|
|
|
The 2x part will never happen in November but who cares? Bigblockers have finally there BCash coin with no Segwit+8mb blocks...thats what they wanted, right?
What they want is control. Block sizes are irrelevant Miners already have enough control with their hashrate. I prefer a plurality of influencing actors (miners, exchanges, developers, main whales, relevant individuals, users, etc) as a form of power decentralisation. I do agree block size is not that much relevant (within some common sense boundaries). So that's why I am fine with a moderate (2x) blocksize increase.... delivered by CORE developers and in the safest possible way. I am totally in disagreement with more power/control "flippening". Let's just have some respect to the "status quo" that have lead us to where we are right now and keep evolving slowly and without ridiculous experiments and power unbalances. We've already blown past 2x blocksize, as segwit has an effective capacity of 3mb+. With 2x blocks, that becomes not 2mb, but 7mb. |
|
|
|
The 2x part will never happen in November but who cares? Bigblockers have finally there BCash coin with no Segwit+8mb blocks...thats what they wanted, right?
What they want is control. Block sizes are irrelevant |
|
|
|
Too bad for them this plan doesn't work. Western investors are literally mentally retarded and metals demand drops off a cliff when the price is low while demand is huge in the rest of the world like China right now.
Westerners always jump in to FOMO buy at the top and don't buy anything at the bottom.
It has a lot to do with currency stability. People in developing nations value metals because they outperform their national currencies in the long run. It's more like a defensive medium against inflation and currency devaluation rather than an investment - although it's both. In Greece, british gold sovereign coins were pretty widespread as a form of value-storage, before the euro. Then the euro came and it was considered stable enough to almost eradicate the "habit". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
