Physical assets are subject to seizure.
You may not find them relevant but this is pretty much how every form of money was judged historically.
You don't find it relevant that Bitcoin can be divided into micro-transactions and sent all over the world while gold is hardly convenient for casual transactions and quite a hassle to store and transport in large quantity?
Um... and you are the one who wants bitcoin to be a high transfer payment system?  Guess you need to decide what settings bitcoin should have. And yes, as long as people believe in bitcoin value then the value is fine. It would change when countries all over the world would forbid bitcoin and nobody is allowed to accept it. It would be dark money then. With way less worth. Gold can be seized if you didn't hide properly, but in case of crash it still has a value, well not really so much anymore when everyone wants to sell it to electronic companies.  |
|
|
|
The #1 attraction of Bitcoin is its monetary sovereignty. This is how it proposes to change people's life. Not because of free & instant transactions.
How will you reach that sovereignty when you need exchangers to change it to fiat? It would be useless then. You need it as an every currency. Spendable when you want. And jeff, the value of bitcoin really comes from those who hold and does not sell. Because they believe in the value of bitcoin and store real world value in bitcoin. They sold something to get the bitcoin. If they would sell then it would mean they lost trust and bitcoin price would crash. |
|
|
|
Is Bitcoin more durable than gold? Yes
I don't think so - gold will still be there when the internet is not (in fact gold will still be there when we cease to exist as a species). And gold has an inherit value for production of electronics and other things. You can do nothing with a bunch of numbers that build the bitcoin blockchain once it's value should crash. By the way... this fee market. Why the heck should it be needed when the miners are already paid way too much? I mean it is so rewarding that the network is 100 times safer than it would need to be. And every transaction costs so much electricity like 1.75 average US-households use in a day. Bigger transactions even more. Miners need to be trimmed down, rewards need to sink. I can't hear the whining of miners that we somehow need to make up for the block halving. Trashing old miner tech was happening all the time. Deal with it. Otherwise bitcoin will have the fame of being bad for environment. |
|
|
|
We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own? Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin. I'm not sure where you life so that "our" hardware is not capable of using bigger blocks. In practically all countries i know it would be no problem at all. Might depend on where you live. There's the rub. Some countries have miners with the advantage of bigger blocks and some have miners with the advantage of smaller blocks. If you get away from the hardware issue and focus on the end user, then more tps and larger blocks becomes evident. Not really. What you describe would be some stoneage country. Every computer nowadays can deal with it. And we surely don't need to make sure that bitcoin nodes can run on a C64, don't you think? One can go too far easily... It takes more than computing power to support larger block sizes. Some countries can't handle the bandwidth of those large blocks to propagate them. You don't even have to look into other countries: 50% of rural americans wouldn't have the connection to handle 8mb blocks, that's roughly 30 million people in the United States alone. In countries like Russia (not Moscow of course) and all those ex soviet countries (ukraine, belarus and so on) internet is still very limited in big parts of the population. Venezuela and all those south American countries are also stuck with really poor internet connections. We need to be able to see nodes coming from those places too. So we need nodes in every developing internet area because? And we don't need bitcoin as a small amount transfer system because? Something doesn't match with this argumentation. Somehow we need to have every crappy internet connection take part but at the end it doesn't matter for them with bitcoin turning into a high amount transfer system. |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. But it could not serve as a replacement for fiat or bank money anymore. And that's the vision satoshi had. The thought that bitcoin has to be switched into a high volume transfer system is somewhat strange. It's so far away from the roots of bitcoin that it is not even funny anymore. It would not be peoples money anymore. It would be corporation money or rich people money only. I don't like that vision. And i doubt satoshi was stupid enough to not foresee the current problems. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately a compromise needs to be meet between wanting to go all on-chain and wanting to stay decentralized.
If you want to have all on chain decentralization of nodes is lost. This is the least wanted possibility. Therefore, we must do all things possible to not end up like that.
I want Bitcoin to scale to global level payments, and it seems something like LN is the most realistic possibility.
So? Do you think Satoshi was stupid when he believed in bitcoin being a worldwide currency of way more transactions? Did i somewhere miss the point where he wrote that at one point we need to cripple bitcoin down and use a crutch like lightning network only to let it work somehow? You realize that satoshi wanted so many transactions to happen that it could replace the blocksize reward? Bitcoin alone. No crutch like LN. Man, i don't get this so obvious side interests showing up. It's like an advertising company spreading fear of centralization, spam attacks and whatever. Well, i must admit it is somewhat successfull since it seems some people believe it. LN is not a crutch, rather it is one of the only option by which Bitcoin can support ubiquitous worldwide transaction volume. Unless you are intent on having Bitcoin run by corporation and government sponsored datacenters. Well, at the end miner corporations have the power over bitcoin now. Not what we imagined at the start i guess. But it is the case. In the near future they will merge and one or two will survive. They will work together to implement what they want to see in bitcoin. So i don't really fear that nodes are run by datacenters. That's not really the problem here. |
|
|
|
Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it
you're really not very smart if you think we have several years before we hit the limit. The adoption rate of any technology, including bitcoin, is exponential. So we don't have nearly as much time as you think. So what do you suggest? Surely not a linear increase in block size? Or should we make it exponential as well? I suggest dropping that limit completely. Fighting spam with minimum fees and such. There simply is no need for crippling bitcoin that way. There was no problem with full blocks until the spamming started. And the spamming would not have been started with unlimited blocks. Way too expensive and spam would be useless. Do you understand the consequences an unbounded block size would have? Such a decision would inevitably lead to a sudden and surely exponential increase in the cost of running a full node. Do you want Bitcoin to be run in datacenters? Well well, again the story of the suddenly appearing spamtransactions hundred fold of the actual amount of transactions. Where should these transactions come from suddenly? They never happened since satoshie proposed the 1MB block size limit. They only happen now when it is financially somehow rewarding to spam the network. Be it for raising the fees for miners, and getting some or all of your investment back, or to promote the need or nonneed of a block size increase. I think there are more clever ways to deal with spam. I mean why should someone spam 20 MB blocks? It would be stupid and useless because the next block would be 20MB and that's it. The network will work like it ever did. And the spammer only lost money. All this fearmongering... And centralization? There are already ways to be a node without having to store the full blockchain. As well as mining became centralized to the point that the might miners have over bitcoin should be not acceptable for a decentralized currency. But it happens and is not avoidable. I always wonder how someone can stay around and claim that we need 1MB blocks, knowing, that it will kill bitcoin with unconfirming transactions and high fees, and is trying to cramp the protocol in a cage that is way too small for it already. That is so backwardsighted, it's unbelieveable. Well, except one assumes other monetary interests behind. In no way are the previous spam attacks financially rewarding for whoever is responsible for them. That's pure nonsense. I'm afraid you simply lack imagination  The bloat I'm referring to is not necessarily your typical spam attacks. Anyone interested in using the blockchain as some sort of database or for de minimis transactions of little monetary value has had to deal with the cap as a deterrent. The transactions never happened precisely because of the 1MB block size limit. If we choose to remove this limit then we leave the blockchain open to all kind of abuse from people leeching its resources without consideration for the people shouldering the load : the nodes. Please don't be naive: if you build it, they will come. Ever heard of supply creates its own demand? Surely you've read about the "Fidelity problem" and how they are supposedly planning to leverage Bitcoin's blockchain for their project? If such reports are true then we can safely presume other projects have similar interest. How much bloat do you believe it would be reasonable for the network to support these projects? If Fidelity requires 20mb blocks to satisfy its use case would you be comfortable accomodating them with these resources? In short: assuming the demand for transaction is infinite and that Bitcoin adoption tends to grow exponentially do you accept that under an unbounded block size the resources required to participate in the network as a peer (run a full node) will follow this exponential growth? All this fearmongering... I always wonder how someone can stay around and claim that we need 1MB blocks, knowing, that it will kill bitcoin with unconfirming transactions and high fees, and is trying to cramp the protocol in a cage that is way too small for it already.
The spam attacks can be financially rewarding when a conglomerate of big miner corporations is sponsoring it. No one would ever know if they did since i'm sure the spammer can receive anonymous bitcoin payments. And it will only be easier the more the blocks are filled. Less costs, higher fees. I'm sure you can see the connection. And hopefully the risk too then. You speak as if the current blocks are full of "using the blockchain as some sort of database or for de minimis transactions of little monetary value has had to deal with the cap as a deterrent". Where are these? Why it doesn't happen when the blocks mostly aren't even full? And why should it happen suddenly when there is not only 50% free space but 15% free? Maybe because of the minimum fee? It's pure speculation that something that is not done yet, with 500KB free space in EACH block, would not be done now but suddenly with 15.5MB free space. That's fortune telling and not even smart one since reality shows that it would be possible now, but it doesn't happen. You might say they will create huge transactions and pay only the satoshies per Byte... fine, i don't like the current handling not too. You can't go to the post office and put a big box of letters on the table and await that the box is paid with the price it would when you would send the box to one address. But in bitcoin you can await that all the letters are sent to different locations for the price of shipping the box to one address. That surely is not cool. There should be a minimum fee per output. Simple as that. Didn't hear about fidelity yet. Though if they have to pay fees then they might think about it. They surely would not bloat the blockchain to the point of damaging bitcoin since they rely on the service then. Destroying would destroy their business model. Wouldn't be smart. Like i said, if they want to store they would have to pay. Per output. If their business model still works then fine. It could not be avoided then, regardless of blocksize. It would happen anyway. I'm still standing behind what i said. When a big part of legit bitcoin transactions never will confirm, then this is the dead to bitcoin. I don't care then about some other altcoin that still uses bitcoin. I would search a better system. I'm not sure why you can't see the problem. Or do you? |
|
|
|
Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it
You are right: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-sizeThough you see the constant trend right? And you know how easily and without high costs it is possible to fill these blocks up to 1MB? Now imagine what happens in the case of a fast adoption of bitcoin. Like amazon accepting bitcoins directly. Bitcoin blocks would be full instantly and bitcoin would practically die in the same time. Since all the new users would have a terrible user experience. Bitcoin would not confirm most transactions and nobody needs a currency that even lost such a crucial advantage. Why should anyone use an unreliable currency like that? There are a lot of holes in your logic. The most obvious one being that Amazon accepting Bitcoin would have little effect on the adoption of Bitcoin. If you still hold true to these beliefs it seems there are lot of things you need to learn before addressing the block size issue. Unfortunately your answer doesn't contain anything valid as an argument that i could go against. Only a personal attack that i need to learn to understand the block size issue. Surely not constuctive. But i will explain it more in detail. Let's assume amazon decides to accept bitcoin. Maybe they even advertise it as a cheap way to earn money without risk for them. Then let's assume that the amount of transactions jumps up 200% from now. I'm pretty sure you can imagine what that would mean at the end. It would mean that a lot of new bitcoin users would come and use bitcoin but their experience would be horrible. Since by design 33% of all transactions would never be filled. (Assuming we are at 50% filled blocks now in average.) So now explain me why that would not be a problem for bitcoin please. Simple, a fee market would take hold whereas those interested the most in getting their transaction through will pay the necessary fee. Those that can't bother paying extra fee just to give a online shopping transaction higher priority will be left contemplating better, more efficient alternatives and realize that the "Bitcoin payment network" is not all it was cracked up to be. The fact is that a large majority of Bitcoin users are not interested in using their holdings for casual internet shopping. There are numerous valid reasons behind this and one should be wise to realize that Bitcoin is not an interesting option for consumer spendings. In that regard credit cards are largely more efficient and secure for the mainstream population. It is counter-intuitive to presume that people are going to rush to Bitcoin if somehow Amazon would begin to accept it. What incentive is there for them? Why go through all the hassle of purchasing Bitcoin just to.... make purchases. Fiat works well in that regard and while some here would like to pretend otherwise, regular joes are perfectly comfortable with their current situation. Of course Amazon already acknowledges this which is why they feel no urgency adding Bitcoin as a payment option. And you totally forget that everony wants his transactin to confirm. So everyone will pay more and STILL 33% of all transactions will never confirm. That is a unbelieveable feature for a currency. It would be so unreliable that it would be stupid to even think about using such a system. The fee market would mean everyone pays more and more and still 33% would lose. Great plan indeed. The average user is not using bitcoin because the use cases are limited. Now guys like you come and give up, claiming that bitcoin will never make it... let's give up guys. Only because adoption by users and markets isn't so wide spread yet doesn't mean that this will not happen. But it will happen for sure when your fee market will break bitcoin. If Amazon would accept it then Amazon would have it's reason. Maybe they even give a discount. It doesn't matter why amazon would do it. Point is, in the event of a thing like that happening, bitcoin would die. You sound like you are not bitcoiner at all. Why use bitcoin? Well, if you think bitcoin has no advantage then why are you here? It obviously has advantages, and that is why you are here. Why do you think every average joe must be stupidier than you and not getting it at all? |
|
|
|
We will most likely be purchasing 30,000-100,000 fresh Clamcoins at a "loss" (this could change of course because of shit going on in life & other markets... but that is my goal.)
Why don't you make your buyin rates dynamic simply? Or do you want to check how the buyin rates change with the clamprice dropping? So you can choose your perfect rate for later? |
|
|
|
Looking for OP show up online. He has my 3BTC in control for 20h and i would like to get it back. And it is strange why SebastianJu is so long offline when got that money
He has a life outside this forum, and its Sunday. Maybe something came up which required his attention. Yes. In that case he should reject my request to handle escrow. If he has no time for that why did he agreed. Right? Its a 1000usd and thats a money to me. Keeping me out of control what is mine and letting me quesing whats going on do not gives him any extra trust. I have mentioned in the firs post of my exchange offer that i am looking for a smooth trade and not time wasters please and now got my BTC stuck somewhere when i need it so much. That money was to arrage a payments and everyminute he is not here i am late on my tasks. I hope you can understand me Since you brought up that point in my service thread too i will repeat what i wrote you in your thread. You should not sit before the screen and await everything happening in an instant. Most trades happen over days because one or more involved parties are not online all the time. In your case the seller did not show up and we had to wait. Normally iam online a couple of times a day but not always, because weekend and i'm still in hospital and so on. Most other big escrows only show up daily, if not less than daily in the forum. If a trade can be done instantly because all parties are there then i will do that, but your seller left and it was not clear when he will be back. Anyway, your bitcoins are refunded and the scammer got his red trust because he minutes after i posted in your thread that i accept your request for refund and will send your coins back, and hours after you cancelled the deal and told him to not send, that he send and that i should send him the bitcoins. |
|
|
|
How is the anonymity of the users compared to bitcoin with the lightning network? Or is it that the lightning network would work with a website, service or exchange only anyway so that those know their customers?
If this really would happen and leading to higher fees fees because of too small blocks then what about personal transactions? Can payment channels be established for private person to private person and without high fees?
I do not understand why people think that the lightning network is going to have high fees? Luke-jr even said somewhere that it would have lower fees than using the blockchain. Yes, you can create payment channels with anyone that you want. You can find many simple explanations by clicking on this link.Then you say it is not true that most of the developers are heavily invested into the network and others too? Can you explain where they expect the return of investment from if not by fees? Or do you say that they did not invest at all? |
|
|
|
You want to know what that fucking scammer did? He sent me a pm, minutes after i posted in your thread that i will refund you and claimed he paid you and that he wants the btc. As if he would risk it after you stopped the trade and i agreed to send the coins back. What a douchebag. I don't await any proof of it coming through. |
|
|
|
Repas, you shouldn't sit before the screen all day when you have to wait for a party of the trade to appear. That isn't doing anyone except you know that the trade will happen in the next minutes. But that is very seldom the case. I'm currently in hospital so i have less time than usual on top. Too bad that the seller did not show up. I will refund you now. Good luck with your next trade.  |
|
|
|
Thank you all for the answer.
Reading a lot of posts of famous media or some blog the alert everytime on:
- BTC cause to much pollution and energy usage (more than actual FIAT, bank, system)
Well, it is way less than the fiat or banking system. But still, bitcoin has it's problems. For example, the current hashpower is 100 times higher than needed. 1% of that hashpower would be enough to hold the bitcoin network secure. So there is no reason for the "fee market" the 1MB block fans propagate. Miners need to trim down their miners. It happened all the time. Nobody mines bitcoin with GPU or CPU anymore now. Those miners were switched off. So when the reward is way way lower then bitcoin will still survive even with many miners switching off their miners. And this hugely overloaded system has another problem. A study, some months ago, showed that ONE bitcoin transaction needs so much power like 1.75 average US-households use in electricity per day. ONE transaction. If the transactions has more than one input and 2 outputs then this power consumption grows even. So at the moment bitcoin surely is not environmental friendly because the reward for miners is too high. |
|
|
|
In case the buyer do not send me agreed amount of usd please return btc to:
16WuuYhtSmxtcJg91cu5Lx1bzL2LMKRhDu
(I have included .0001 miner fee so you dont need to pay from your own)
If btc prise will inrease and i the buyer will not respond i am leaving a right to cancel a trade
SebastianJu please confirm that you hold 3BTC for this trade
Ok, i noted down the refund address and changed buyer and seller since we always buy something with bitcoin here. We don't buy bitcoins.  |
|
|
|
Hi, as perfect cryptocoins newbie, i am wondering about the future of the BTC if:
- the weight of block-chain that can reach and go over 1TB (it start to become to big for a lot of users)
- the computing power required to confirm every more and more transaction (not for all again)
- the probability that the check system could go all to less companies that can substain power and storage
- the probability that anyone can generate a private key from my public key
- the probability that anyone generate a bruteforce attack generating a lot of keys (public,private) and steal bitcoin
Thank you
Then think about what will happen if we have 200% more transactions regularly. It would mean that constantly 33% of all legit transactions will never get a confirmation. Can you imagine how useless bitcoin would be then? And it doesn't matter if someone tries to host a full node on his smartphone or C64, we simply can't trim bitcoin down so much that it renders practically useless. Don't you think? And don't believe all the fear against bigger blocks. The people spreading it have their own project in the makings. The lightning network. The worse bitcoin works the more people will use their altcoin, they hope. Which would translate into income for them. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin address: 1NnJpX2wFFYF7eHKF4biY82XbzYq3Wr4PH
1LK7tfH7B15w15ZUMWT16j8NEFEr9nsVJu this one
Is that your escrow address ? Confirm, sebastianju
yeah confrims from him and also post trx id here please and you pm id i will send you pm thanks I think this guy is deliberately falsifying escrow address. Anyway we can expect SebastianJu reply he replied in pm wait for his reply here...... The first address is only my tipping address. I don't know the second address. I only have posted in this thread that i would provide escrow if a trade was initiated. repas-sventa now sent me a pm and i will send you the escrow address in some minutes. 3BTC exactly? When answering PM's, please always use "Reply to all" so that all involved parties get informed. The escrow address is: 1PxkRyHgAr5wvJoGZ7rtZJ7jYoNv4Fe5ya Before payment i would suggest you take a look at http://www.cointape.com/ to check out if the network gets spammed again. Below the graph there is shown what amount of fee is needed to get instant confirmation for a normal transaction, which means a transaction with coins coming from one address, and going to two addresses. That would be the target address and the source or a change address where the remaining coins are sent to. Checking that page could prevent that transactions are stuck for hours or days because they dont get a confirmation. The payment of the bitcoins can be found and proved the fastest way through blockchain.info or automatically by email through bitcoinmonitor.net. In case you are new to bitcoin trades on the forum or with escrows, please don't sit before the browser and click reload all the time. That is doing no one. Deals will take some hours, often days too. Some other escrows only log in once a day or even less than that. Seller, whats the bitcoin address i should release the Bitcoins later to? Please send that info to escrow and buyer so that its easily proven i sent to the correct address. Please buyer and seller make an arrangement when the Bitcoins should be released by me. So that everyone has the same thoughts about it. In case signed messages has to be verified, then its the fastest to visit http://wallet-2sx53n.sakurity.com/#verify. Then you can proove fast if a signature, given by me or the seller, is correct and so you know that the address is controlled by the one giving the signature. Escrowfee is donation based... see my donation jar in my profile page... (Left side of page... click on my username) or simply scan the QR-Code from my avatar picture.  -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
20151031 This is the escrow address for the trade from repas-sventa, as the seller to iamrocking, as the buyer and the escrow address is 1PxkRyHgAr5wvJoGZ7rtZJ7jYoNv4Fe5ya
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1K2UFGCKyNQNx4h2m5ZRCaw9BWHTBcCZAA
HMDAJDvtpZCeSwWH6hASoK1HKmTyb3BHl5M90Txq0yzXVu8n8VL9Veikpho7KqVskiia2uStR214sGW5g2pYnpA=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Message signed with an old address of mine, that i posted may 2013 on bitcointalk. See my Servicethread: [ANN] SebastianJu - Free Legendary Escrow Service - Escrowed over 8150 BTC. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin address: 1NnJpX2wFFYF7eHKF4biY82XbzYq3Wr4PH
1LK7tfH7B15w15ZUMWT16j8NEFEr9nsVJu this one
Is that your escrow address ? Confirm, sebastianju
yeah confrims from him and also post trx id here please and you pm id i will send you pm thanks I think this guy is deliberately falsifying escrow address. Anyway we can expect SebastianJu reply he replied in pm wait for his reply here...... The first address is only my tipping address. I don't know the second address. I only have posted in this thread that i would provide escrow if a trade was initiated. repas-sventa now sent me a pm and i will send you the escrow address in some minutes. |
|
|
|
|
Die Fehlermeldung bedeutet dass die Fee zu gering ist. Speziell wenn du viele Inputs hast, also der Betrag den du senden willst aus vielen empfangenen Einzeltransaktionen besteht.
Ich bin mir grad nicht mehr sicher aber ich glaube Electrum hat seit 2.5.2 eine automatische Berechnung der benötigten Fees. Ich bin mir jetzt aber nicht mehr sicher da meine Minimumtransaktionsgebühr zurückgesetzt wurde.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
