Well, the problem is that you can not protect your bitcoins against a falling bitcoin price if it happens. The price stability is taken away then since you can't buy nubits or the spread is huge. Ok, i understand the reason but still unfortunately if you can't trust that your nubit is always worth $1. The theory doesn't help you then the same way like these other coins where the theory says they are stable but you can't use it because the order books are empty. |
|
|
|
Never happening unless Bitcoin gets hit by a 51% attack. I really doubt that the majority of full nodes will start consenting to blocks which don't follow the normal rules of the halving of the Bitcoin reward unless some kind of fork like Bitcoin-XT goes mainstream, which I doubt.
Looking at the current situation, I'd say chances are slim that we'll see something like Bitcoin-XT take off. Plus reward halving is beneficial for miner since it creates hype and drives the prices up, in theory at least  I still hope that an uncontroversial developer manages to release a fork that has no problems connected to like a hearn as developer or so. I surely would support that since we already see problems start with 1MB blocks. We saw that when the bitcoin price rallied and crashed. Blocks were full with legit transactions and confirmation times went up. |
|
|
|
Why do you think the security of the network will be killed when there is no fee market? You realize that the network is 100 times more secure than needed? And that means that the reward for mining is way too high at the moment.
The whole thing should be over-secured. That is the unique selling point. I agree. Better oversecured than the opposite. But it shows that mining is way more rewarding than needed. Which means we don't need a fee market to support the miners now. And that is the main point i see in that. Besides that... it doesn't really matter if the reward is as high as now or only 10% of that. It ALWAYS would mean centralization since corporate organisations will scale up their operations. And small miners are not lucrative anymore since ages. It doesn't matter how high the reward is, the centralization will go on regardless. I'm wondering why satoshi foresaw this and did not think it is a bad thing.
There is still decentralization. Changing the block size will kill that. Why? Only because in 2 years we might have to constantly download 2 MB blocks since 8 MB surely won't be filled completely then? That argument sounds way far fetched. Regarding Nodes... who says that nodes have to work in millisecond areas? Why should bigger blocks mean centralization at all? Harddiscspace? It's dirt cheap. Internet bandwith? Is growing nearly exponentially in most countries. So as long as you don't live in developing countries or in the landside of the US (  ) then you should be fine. In no way it could mean centralization like you seem to vision it. Hard drive space anyone? The blockchain is taking up a huge amount of space on my HD. How much? Did you check prices for harddiscs? Dirt cheap. And really no argument anymore. Besides that, we have already a solution where not the full blockchain has to be stored on the harddisc. Besides that, the blocksizes will only slowly rise. Probably slower than the harddisc space costs for the same price. And only because you think Bitcoin is a currency that should not be used to pay for a coffee doesn't mean that is the vision normal bitcoiners has. In fact you should look around you, microtransactions are one big hit of bitcoin. You surely won't find many fans with the idea of waiving that. And why should it? Bitcoin should replace bank money. If you can't use bitcoin for the everyday life then it's usefullness is so very much limited that it would turn out to be some black money coin only at the end. The use cases for legit transactions would simply very limited. Satoshi never mentioned a vision of bitcoin being a currency for the rich. If bitcoin really would turn out to be a high amount transfer system then this would mean only some people can use it. And because of the nature of bitcoin those people would be not seldom those who want to do bad things with money. Bitcoins fame would turn way more negative. Simply because the normal use cases of money does not really exist anymore. The couple of people that would use it for legit things could be counted on one hand. And the rest? Would use an altcoin. And surely not the controversy lightning network. Way too many "great" altcoins tried that. No it should not. The current system (yes with cash and even credit cards if you wish to give up your privacy so much) is working perfectly well for small transactions, we must stop the government from stealing from us. The mere fact that a huge amount of socialists have joined the Bitcoin forums and communication doesn't mean they should have a say (this is not a democracy for fuck's sake). This is the domain of Libertarians (as is Satoshi! He would hate your arguments and attitude!) and socialists used to make fun of it. Now they want to join! Fuck that. They should just fuck of and DIAF (and they will have no big influence in the end anyway, they are utterly unimportant and non-influential) Bitcoin is to challenge their dominance of the world and change it for the better, not to let them infiltrate and corrupt the very concept. Just fork Bitcoin and make your socialist coin or whatever, it will die anyway because your economic concepts don't work (Keynesians anyone?  ). Don't try to drag Bitcoin down with your retarded ideas of how the world should work. Socialist is who wants that everyone can use bitcoin? Elitist view. And surely no good view since when history has shown one thing then that the people have the power and not some elitists that try to rule. Bitcoin is not a democracy? And who the fuck told you that you have the saying in the game? This sounds ridiculous. As if you feel some right to make the rules. Well, i tell you what. This is a democracy. And users vote by using the fork they want. You might use your old bitcoin then but you can be sure that the real bitcoin will be the bitcoin who most believe is the real bitcoin at the end. Corrupt the concept? The concept was how bitcoin worked until now. YOU want to change how bitcoin works. With high fees and unconfirming legit transactions. Yeah, bitcoin is for libertarians. Though only because you have an elitist world view and thinks you can decide who has the right to take part doesn't mean that you can decide on that. It would only be your opinion. And no, they don't want to join, the normal users were there practically from the start. Your definition of what happened doesn't change history. |
|
|
|
As far as I see it Gavin is desperatly trying to save Bitcoin.
but there is no need to save anything at the moment. so far, bitcoin dealt with problems in a good manner. Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway..  I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. People will learn to pay a fee for a quick Bitcoin transaction. Yes, but for one we should not enforce high fees. Why do we need to have a network that is 100 times safer than needed? Leading to one standard bitcoin transaction using the electricity of 1.57 average us households per day? One transaction! Bigger ones use even more. That simply means we have too many miners and that means the reward is too high. Speaking about a needed fee market because we will lose miners is really not the problem at hand. Miners had to switch off unprofitable mining hardware all the time, there is no sense to try to compensate block halving with higher fees. That is impossible and if really done would be deadly to bitcoin. Second thing is, yes, with 1MB blocks people would learn to pay higher fees. But it would be useless! You can't win that game. I mean imagine constantly 300% legit transactions than we have now. It would mean constantly 33% of all legit transactions could not get confirmed. Which means bitcoin would be HIGHLY unreliable. And even if you want to beat the system with higher fees... you can assume that all other users will try the same. The fees used might rise exponentially, leading to a very expensive currency. No jokes anymore about the paypal fees, they would be heaven then. No jokes about transaction time, your transaction time would be higher pretty sure. Since even when you think you paid more than enough, others had the same thought and raised their fees. So you have a good chance to have your coins caught in limbo, not confirming. No, the bitcoin we would have then would be a nightmare. 1/ there is never enough safety, lets be serious. 2/ we are not enforcing anything but the protocol (read rules) we all signed up for, inculding tx/s, 21M cap, POWalgo etc... 3/ people are not forced to use bitcoin. 1. Yes, you are right. But it means that bitcoin can be attacked as a not green tech. And it's done, you know that. Besides, it is a statement that bitcoin mining is VERY rewarding. Which means we don't need a fee market because the miners earn not enough. 2. Yes, you might enforce these things too, that is fine. But the blocksize limit is artificial and was a temporary measure. Acting like it is an important part of the protocol like 21M cap simply is not correct. 3. Oh well, that is a sad argument. You say if you don't like what we do then leave. Well, you are only one side of the bitcoiners. The question is what will the majority want. I mean who has the power in bitcoin? It might be the miners, yes, they vote with their hashing power about which fork wins. And as far as i read the majority of miners already spoke out for 8 MB blocks. But even if they would want 1MB blocks because they are greedy and shortsighted, the real power behind have the users. All bitcoiners. If bitcoiners majority would decide to use a fork that uses 8MB blocks then this will become the new bitcoin. The value is established by trust in the value. And if majority thinks that is the real bitcoin then it would be the case. So no, it is no question of "I do what i want and if you don't like it then don't use bitcoin." |
|
|
|
Blockstream is a private company lol (and Bitcoin Core is now their project), BIP101 isn't (and XT is just an implementation, you can even use Bitcoin Core + BIP101 if you prefer)
Any effort which includes Maxwell, sipa, and Back working together is totally cool with me. I don't care if it is a private company, corporation, NGO, politburo. or garage workshop rap session. These people have proven themselves (to me) over the last number of years that I've been paying attention. Hearn, and to a lesser degree, Andresen and their shitty Bitcoin Foundation have also proven themselves (to me) over this time period. In that case they have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy and antithetic to everything I hope for in distributed crypto-currencies. A few wild-cards have proven themselves to be a surprise. On the negative side, Ver, and on the positive side (given his involvement with TBF), Matonis. I think even when they now do what you would like to see done, it is never a good idea to trust persons with conflict of interests. Especially when a lot of money is involved. You might be happy now with their deeds but what if they do something you don't want anymore? Then you let it happen that structures be built that prevents you from preventing these new changes. No, conflict of interests should always be watched very cautious. Because they often enough don't act for the general good but for their own good. Matching that with your own good at one time does surely not mean that will be always the case. It is risky to support such actions. |
|
|
|
...
To follow your analogy consider that miners are dealing with 640KB RAM boxes while typical nodes still uses 80 bytes punched cards.
That was the situation in 1950 when the Diner's Club Credit card first came out. For that reason it could only be used a very small very wealthy portion of the population. The critical mistake that Diner's club made is that for the most part they stayed with their 1950s business model so by 2013 they accounted for a mere 0.2% of the credit card market share. http://www.nilsonreport.com/publication_special_feature_article.php. The bank networks VISA and Mastercard started in the late 1960s and early 1970s and saw the mass market potential of credit cards with the advent of the mainframe computer. In the 1990s we saw even wider use of digital payments with debit cards then networks such as PayPal etc. These were each only made possible by further advances in technology. Yet is all of these cases the concept comes back to the original Diner's Club credit card of 1950. The problem with the small block fans is that they want to bake 5 year old technology into the Bitcoin protocol forever effectively turning Bitcoin into the Diner's Club of crypto-currency. There are alt-coins already that have adaptive blocksize limits for those that care to look in the alt-coin section. These coins have this problem solved. The issue in my mind is not whether individuals will be using crypto currency to pay for coffee and store the corresponding blockchain in its entirety on their devices or computers. They will. Technology will see to that. The real issue here is will be they use Bitcoin or some other crypto currency to do so. In short who will be the Diner's Club of crypto-currency and who will be the VISA of crypto-currency. Edit: When one is old enough to have transferred data from punched cards to 5.25 in floppies, I have. One understands that technology simply does not stand still. Diner's Club was/is a PRIVATE company. Is Bitcoin a private company? Well, it will be if it will fork to XT. Then, the shareholders who backup the big exchangers will own the entire Bitcoin XT system. I agree to some extend since when hearn is the developer who decides, then the community would surely eat some frogs with new releases. But if that is your analogy then what about the lightning network invested core developers? How do you see them? An independent organization? I can't see that. They invested a lot into lightning network, as far as i read, and if you invest you want your investment back and possibly make more out of it. Then how would you see these devs then? Would it not look like they work for the company blockstream (lightning network) and since the lightning network would be used more when bitcoin is not working perfectly, they use their position as developers to make sure that bitcoin will not work perfectly in the near future. That surely looks like politicians that work in fact for a private company and misuse their position as politician to rule things in their companies favor. Be honest, if you want to accuse that way then admit that both sides are highly questionable. |
|
|
|
...
That's not even possible at 8 gigabyte blocks, some off-chain solution is needed no matter what. So it's the best place to start. Blocksize is basically the last scaling factor that needs adjusting, not the first.
True moving from 1 MB (the present situation) to 8 GB (Bitcoin XT / BIP 101) is like moving from punched cards 80 bytes each to computers with 640 KB of RAM and two floppy drives. (The infamous Bill Gates limit). Now who says we have to stay at 640 KB of RAM for ever. Baking these kinds of limits into the Bitcoin protocol is fundamentally wrong. The proper solution here is to have market driven adaptive blocksize limits. Edit: Now that we have moved from the 1950s to the 1980s we still have a way to go. Yeah, that was an infamous, troublemaking limit. And nobody could understand why the heck he implemented it. There was no real need for it. I hoped bitcoiners would be better. But it looks like putting bitcoin in a cage seems the plan for many. If you do this with a woman then you will lose her. Give her her freedom and see how things develop. Everone i learned to know who tried to hold his wife away from other mans or tried to take their freedom away did this out of fear and insecurity in himself. If the wife is cheating you then she did not love you and she was not worth your love. End of story. But having a wife you put in a cage is of no real value. Hopefully the fear doesn't win in the community. |
|
|
|
As far as I see it Gavin is desperatly trying to save Bitcoin.
but there is no need to save anything at the moment. so far, bitcoin dealt with problems in a good manner. Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway.. I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. non big blockers? im just a regular bitcoiner man  anyway, to answer you, imho i'd tend to say lets revisit blocksize once block reward < fees. i do want to see a fee market emerge before cutting into it. its been fun until now, low cost transactions and all, but seriously im in bitcoin for a bit more than a visa competitor. monetary sovereignty, censorship resitant and truslessness y know... Yeah, no offense.  I only wanted to group the ones that don't want big blocks. > i'd tend to say lets revisit blocksize once block reward < fees. This sentence sounds VERY dangerous. Do you honestly believe that it is possible to make up for block halving by fees? Then you should calculate it through. The fees would be so high that i would make one last bitcoin transaction. Selling them on an exchange and that was it. And for what would we need such high fees at all? See what i wrote about that we have way way too many miners because mining is way too profitable at the moment. I see what you write about your vision but i honestly can't understand how you think this will be received with a fee market. A fee market would mean bitcoin is expensive and unreliable. Since you can never know if your fee is too low at the end. Besides... why do you think your vision can not be done with 8 mb blocks? In fact i think we would come way more near your vision with bigger blocks. |
|
|
|
...
Let the freeloaders drop Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin manages to attract the wealthiest of pockets and those that care about true censorship resistance & decentralization then we can consider it a success and a foundation on top of which the next financial system can be built.
So we keep Bitcoin just for the 0.001% just like credit cards in the 1950s, since we must not upgrade our technology from punched cards and telegraph lines. Given the engineering decisions behind Bitcoin you really have but two choices: accept that some transactions & use cases will be discriminated against or join the gang of XT shills and attempt to turn Bitcoin into VISA. What? XT is dead. And that is a good thing. But there is a third way... a developer with visions creating a fork. If he is not a problem person then i would support him. And bitcoin into visa only because we want that bitcoin is for everyone? I would prefer the factual level of discussion instead such ungainly claims. |
|
|
|
Pretty suspicious hey?! There are many people accusing him of going rogue. There are gossips running around saying he wants to bug Bitcoin with this new fork...
Is he working with the CIA or not?
I doubt it. Gossip is gossip. But the actions and ideas hearn bring to light are very suspicious to me. I think it is thinkable that he was an agent of some kind when he worked at google already. I mean why the heck should he try to implement all this restrictive and controlling sh... into bitcoin? That makes not much sense. Either he is stupid and really don't know what will follow by his actions or... i don't know. I think gavin is simply stupid to merge with hearn. But we will never know the truth most probably. |
|
|
|
... I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. This is just basic economics. The fees will first rise sharply, then 33% of users will drop Bitcoin, some will move to (an)other crypto-currency(ies) with adaptive blocksize limits, some will move to the legacy banking system etc. Yes this could very well be the end of Bitcoin but not for distributed blockchain based crypto-currencies. Now we see why Gavin is so desperate about his fork. He cares about Bitcoin. Let the freeloaders drop Bitcoin. If Bitcoin manages to attract the wealthiest of pockets and those that care about true censorship resistance & decentralization then we can consider it a success and a foundation on top of which the next financial system can be built. Wow, what a mindset. Who wants to use bitcoin and has not much money is a freeloader. Elitist view on things. And the complete opposite of the initial vision of bitcoin. It sounds a bit like bitcoin attracted another kind of users who try to claim it for themselfes only. Enemy takeover? Reminds me on the german pirate party. They were undermined at one point in time by a group called antigermans. They have their own agenda and wanted to misuse the party for their targets. We consequently pushed them out when we became aware of the problem and learned to draw the line clearly. And you vision of the wealthiest... i think you don't realize which persons you really want to attract. Those that don't like censorship? You would drop most legit users and attract users that use bitcoin for illegal uses. Then you don't need to wait very long until critics get very loud and bitcoin will get in real trouble. And it wouldn't help then that bitcoin can't be stopped. Governments can hurt bitcoin a lot if they want. Attacking nodes, forbidding acceptance and so on. It would be a crimecoin only anymore since the biggest part of legit users was pushed out. And if governments act then the price would not hold. All the wealthy bitcoiners would be done. And to be honest, if i would be such a wealthy bitcoiner then i would not use this fork. Or maybe i would, but only for speculation and trading. I would surely not consider it a safe haven since price stability would be even worse with only high amount users. And the risk of attracting more and more criminal users. That new financial system would be a little system, not really usefull and surely not surviveable. |
|
|
|
... I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. This is just basic economics. The fees will first rise sharply, then 33% of users will drop Bitcoin, some will move to (an)other crypto-currency(ies) with adaptive blocksize limits, some will move to the legacy banking system etc. Yes this could very well be the end of Bitcoin but not for distributed blockchain based crypto-currencies. Now we see why Gavin is so desperate about his fork. He cares about Bitcoin. If this really would be the optimal vision for the developers then this would be not my community or bitcoin anymore. I would gladly use an alternate bitcoin fork where hearn is not taking part or has a big saying then. I'm VERY sure that many many bitcoiners would chose the same since nobody would watch how bitcoin goes down that way. Yes, i think Gavin cares about bitcoin but merging with hearn was so incredibly stupid that i wonder if i would trust him again. In fact i'm really wondering why there is not a single independent developer who already released a bitcoin version with 8 mb blocks and who is independent. A pure bitcoin fan, nothing more, no sh... politician. |
|
|
|
Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway.. I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. Except Bitcoin is not contained in a bubble and there are other alternatives by which one can hold & secure their wealth in Bitcoin yet use these superficial open source payment layers to transact with. Kinda like you don't use your savings account to buy nuggets at McDonald, ya know? I don't see a real big deal in a transaction not confirming in my normal use-case over the last 4 years. On-chain transactions for me are nearly always about risk management. My risk management strategies are years-long and course operations. Even in my to-date use of Bitcoin, I've not expected a transaction to occur with high reliability because it remains in an experimental state. What I do expect, however, is that my transaction would time-out eventually rather than be lost which is a vastly different thing. So far I have been pleasantly surprised that my native Bitcoin transactions have gone through within a few block cycles. That is perfectly adequate for me. My expectations for a sidecoin will be entirely different. There I would expect reliable and fast transactions (if that were the design goal of a particular sidechain.) I would also expect that in an unusual system failure or successful attack, my value would not be lost. I am willing to take a hit on convenience (say, to have my value tied up for a few weeks) in this case because I expect such events to be rare. Then this sounds like you have a very different use pattern for bitcoin than most. Practically every transaction is time sensitive. Be it that the bitcoin price stopped rising and you want to sell it fast to not lose value, be it that you need to pay a product before the price drops and you need to send more coins. Most people don't want to wait. And why should they? One of bitcoins rare plus points that is used for advertising the use of bitcoin is it's fast transaction. I mean bitcoin surely has not so many good points that would be enough to make users switch to using it. Taking one point away can make bitcoin already way less attractive. |
|
|
|
As far as I see it Gavin is desperatly trying to save Bitcoin.
but there is no need to save anything at the moment. so far, bitcoin dealt with problems in a good manner. Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway.. I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. People will learn to pay a fee for a quick Bitcoin transaction. Yes, but for one we should not enforce high fees. Why do we need to have a network that is 100 times safer than needed? Leading to one standard bitcoin transaction using the electricity of 1.57 average us households per day? One transaction! Bigger ones use even more. That simply means we have too many miners and that means the reward is too high. Speaking about a needed fee market because we will lose miners is really not the problem at hand. Miners had to switch off unprofitable mining hardware all the time, there is no sense to try to compensate block halving with higher fees. That is impossible and if really done would be deadly to bitcoin. Second thing is, yes, with 1MB blocks people would learn to pay higher fees. But it would be useless! You can't win that game. I mean imagine constantly 300% legit transactions than we have now. It would mean constantly 33% of all legit transactions could not get confirmed. Which means bitcoin would be HIGHLY unreliable. And even if you want to beat the system with higher fees... you can assume that all other users will try the same. The fees used might rise exponentially, leading to a very expensive currency. No jokes anymore about the paypal fees, they would be heaven then. No jokes about transaction time, your transaction time would be higher pretty sure. Since even when you think you paid more than enough, others had the same thought and raised their fees. So you have a good chance to have your coins caught in limbo, not confirming. No, the bitcoin we would have then would be a nightmare. |
|
|
|
As far as I see it Gavin is desperatly trying to save Bitcoin.
but there is no need to save anything at the moment. so far, bitcoin dealt with problems in a good manner. Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway.. I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. Except Bitcoin is not contained in a bubble and there are other alternatives by which one can hold & secure their wealth in Bitcoin yet use these superficial open source payment layers to transact with. Kinda like you don't use your savings account to buy nuggets at McDonald, ya know? Yes there are other altcoins. But should it really be the plan to practically give up on bitcoin and tell interested users to use an altcoin? That is so very much against the vision every early adopter had of bitcoin. If we give up here then it is claiming being defeated. It says we were wrong, bitcoin can not compete with fiat money. It's use is limited. Besides, using altcoins surely is no solution to the bandwith problem and all. It would mean you would have to run another node that downloads blocks and so on. It would be pushed from one blockchain to another if the tech is similar. No, you don't use your savings account for buy nuggets, you would withdraw a little bit from your savings account and go shopping with that. The same with bitcoin. You take some coins out of cold storage and put it in your smartphone wallet. Then shopping. It is still the same currency. It would be a clusterfuck if we would have to tell interested users that they need different altcoins now because we built bitcoin into a artificial cage. Out of fear. I mean i can understand why fear is spreading in the community. It is, unfortunately, a hunting place for scammers, inept businessmans and whatsoever. Everyone lost huge piles of cash, probably many lost all and becoming cautious is natural. But being fearful and being too restrictive and conservative was never a good receipt for growth. |
|
|
|
I checked out coinoUSD on poloniex but it seems they have a huge spread there and no volume. So they are useless for me.
Bitshares 1 seems to be run on poloniex, will they update on version 2 soon??
TetherUSD is used on plo directly but the orderbooks are too thin to exchange really there. And i don't see a full relation to the US-Dollar.
I wonder if bitshares 2 are really better and bitusd? Where do they trade best and what is the insurance on bitusd that they can back the value and don't run with the backing?
At the moment it looks to me like only nubits have the low enough spread and good enough filled orderbooks to use it. Though not really in times of crashes or fast rising prices.
Poloniex upgraded to bts 2.0 last month. Have you read any of the links I posted above or checked out the wallet? The links will answer your questions on what "backs" BitUSD, BitBTC, and all the BitAssets. Check out the hosted wallet by OpenLedger https://bitshares.openledger.info/I wanted to check out bitshares but then i was told that it must be an error that bitshares is worth $1 always. I checked the prices on poloniex and it really doesn't look like a bitshare, you say it is version 2, is worth something like that, nor there is a inverse connection to the bitcoinvalue. The bitshares are only worth some K satoshis. So i don't see where the connection is. Besides, only one side of the orderbook seems to hold enough coin value to make it possible to exchange a reasonable amount of btc to a USD fiat replacement. Or is there a better place with higher volume? And it seems poloniex doesn't have bitusd, i can't find it at least. I have read the first link but i don't get it yet. There is no fiat or so backing it. It all is based on trust and believe in the value of bitusd. That sounds risky since i don't see how it can be secured that way. Through the shorters? So value in shorts are rising when price of bitusd sinks, so the total value of the currency remains stable or something like that? Though i don't see how those who hold bitusd can trust that the bitusd price can not crash. They should have nothing from shorts becoming worth much then. |
|
|
|
How's my investment?
Was that an attempt to joke? |
|
|
|
|
Cryptostocks seems to be back up. So if someone missed the last div then he should withdraw the coins.
I'm only fresh out of hospital so i have to check back with the majority shareholders regarding the next steps. The fifth went by again, though CS was down at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
Since today i can't request a new deposit address anymore. I hope that is only a temporary bug, otherwise it would compromise anonymity.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
