I seriously think that your understanding of economics is lacking. If fees became 100x larger it would kill the majority of use cases for Bitcoin, it would certainly drive the majority of users away to less expensive alternatives.
No it's not. You just live in a bubble outside or reality where the payment network is the majority use case for Bitcoin. Jump out of your delusion for a minute and consider that it's not. Only a marginal percentage of the money supply is in circulation. The rest is being held in cold storage. The indisputable principal use case of Bitcoin at this stage is as a speculative store of value. That is: either people hold it or trade it on exchange for different fiat currencies. These use cases are not deterred by transaction fees. Everything else is a major distraction that has largely been responsible for the current situation. Naive people such as yourself has been misguided into thinking Bitcoin, right now, is somehow a competitive payment network and that we should unconditionally strive to sell this zero-fee, instant tx to everyone listening. I think that something the Bitcoin community has to be honest about, at least amongst ourselves is what Bitcoin is about today and what we would like it to be. Sometimes we make it look like it's about things we want it to be in the future. The truth is when we look at the volume of people buying the "stock" of Bitcoin and the flow of people buying their first bitcoin. It's mostly about buying & holding. It's totally fine, it's a decent use case. It's not a two-sided market : for me to buy & hold it doesn't require a counterparty to accept Bitcoin. I simply have to agree to a price that someone is selling. It has been working for 3 years and I think we can depend on that. It's not some theory, some hypothesis, it's working and it can keep working That is unsustainable and it is a zero sum game. I believe Bitcoin is the future of money and more. Bitcoin is a currency and a commodity just like the gold and silver coins of ancient times. Which have served humanity as currency for the majority of our known history, there certainly is precedent for this concept to say the least. No. Everyone just holds until fiat is worthless. I don't give a damn what you believe it. I am explaining to you clearly what the current market use for Bitcoin is. There is no debating this. It's clear your conceptions of economics are misguided or outright ignorant. You might be experienced in obtuse political babble but it's clear economy is not your strong suit. Have a look at this list here and consider how little of the top holders are concerned with transactions: http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100 |
|
|
|
People who need it will still be using Bitcoin even if fees a 100x larger than what they are today. This is really a non-issue.
Not necessarily, Bitcoin exists as the most respected and secure crypto-currency in existence at the moment. If I was getting hit with 30 cents to 40 cents each time a few negative consequences would occur- 1) I wouldn't be able to brag to peers how cheap bitcoin is compared to cc or debit cards to tx in . P/R problem. 2) I would consider using centralized off the chain solutions like coinbase to eliminate these fees which defeats one of the primary raison d'être of bitcoin. 3) I may consider using more fiat and alts for txs with lower fees. Bitcoin is great but lets not assume invulnerability as its still young , immature , and risky currency with plenty of competition. Another mislead and very lost sheep  1) You shouldn't have started in the first place. Bitcoin is a miserable experience and absolutely unable to compete with centralized payment networks in terms of fees and convenience. That will change eventually, but right now they're not even comparable. 2) The primary raison d'être of Bitcoin is not that you should secure your everyday transactions under nearly 1 exahash of hashing power but that you are able to safely store your wealth in an asset that cannot be debased. If you find convenience in the user-friendly and cost effective solutions provided by off-chain solutions why would you not use them? It doesn't stop you from storing your capital in Bitcoin. The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain". 3) That is really the only sane way to go about it... Ever heard of Gresham's law  |
|
|
|
I seriously think that your understanding of economics is lacking. If fees became 100x larger it would kill the majority of use cases for Bitcoin, it would certainly drive the majority of users away to less expensive alternatives.
No it's not. You just live in a bubble outside or reality where the payment network is the majority use case for Bitcoin. Jump out of your delusion for a minute and consider that it's not. Only a marginal percentage of the money supply is in circulation. The rest is being held in cold storage. The indisputable principal use case of Bitcoin at this stage is as a speculative store of value. That is: either people hold it or trade it on exchange for different fiat currencies. These use cases are not deterred by transaction fees. Everything else is a major distraction that has largely been responsible for the current situation. Naive people such as yourself has been misguided into thinking Bitcoin, right now, is somehow a competitive payment network and that we should unconditionally strive to sell this zero-fee, instant tx to everyone listening. I think that something the Bitcoin community has to be honest about, at least amongst ourselves is what Bitcoin is about today and what we would like it to be. Sometimes we make it look like it's about things we want it to be in the future. The truth is when we look at the volume of people buying the "stock" of Bitcoin and the flow of people buying their first bitcoin. It's mostly about buying & holding. It's totally fine, it's a decent use case. It's not a two-sided market : for me to buy & hold it doesn't require a counterparty to accept Bitcoin. I simply have to agree to a price that someone is selling. It has been working for 3 years and I think we can depend on that. It's not some theory, some hypothesis, it's working and it can keep working |
|
|
|
Good to know that a BIP is in the works, though obviously I disagree with your assertion that we are not presently approaching network capacity, it is becoming quite clear that we are nearing that point now.
As you can see from this chart the growth in transaction volume is consistent, almost even exponential.
I would suggest the tipping point where we can start to consider a fee market developing and rasing tx fee prices would be a day of full blocks(whichever the limits miners impose as ultimately they can lower the limit or reject tx's) https://www.quandl.com/data/BCHAIN/AVBLS-Bitcoin-Average-Block-SizeWe are still not there yet but it is also perfectly reasonable to take Gavin's suggestion that we should prepare for capacity limits beforehand. I take a middle view and suggest we should be prepared to implement a hard fork to raise the limit as a temporary bump (perhaps 2-4-8 ) if we have a day of full blocks and the fee market starts to raise prices unreasonably with negative effects on our ecosystem. Paypal and Visa sometimes have outages , and it wouldn't be the end of the world if bitcoin had a brief hiccup and I like the pressure to incentivize more creative solutions (segwit/ln/relay network/ect...) that the fear is creating. People who need it will still be using Bitcoin even if fees a 100x larger than what they are today. This is really a non-issue. |
|
|
|
Thanks RoadTrain and brg444, you have actually answered some questions about SW that I was still wondering about.
I do like SW though it will take a long time to fully implement and I also do not think it is a viable solution to significantly increasing the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain by itself, which will be necessary over the short term. I would also prefer to see SW implemented through a hard fork instead of a soft fork which is how it is presently being implemented. I would also prefer to see the proposal formalized into a BIP so that it can be more thoroughly discussed and analyzed over a longer period of time. Instead of the Core developers just deciding among themselves that this will be implemented into Bitcoin.
A BIP is currently in the works and I would imagined soon to be released. As for the implementation the general consensus seems to be that a soft work would be much quicker and easier to implement than any other hard-fork proposals. In short term Bitcoin suffers from no throughput concerns. We've yet to fill up blocks on average. Moreover the timeline for SW seems pretty reasonable and would allow for even faster deployment of large scale Lightning Network implementations. As to time-line Luke I saw guestimated by march 2016 on reddit. Others maybe be more or less conservative. Probably a BIP and testing are the main thing, and that can be helped by more eyes.
I think people have a variety of sequences in mind, eg some would prefer to deploy versionBits first, so that subsequent features can be deployed in parallel (currently soft-fork deployment is necessarily serialised).
Others think do seg-witness first because scale is more important.
Some want to do seg-witness as a hard-fork (personally I think that would take a bit longer to deploy & activate - the advantage of soft-fork is that it's lower risk and we have more experience of it). http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011969.html |
|
|
|
It makes no sense to stop right there. You can't just split a transaction without it losing its integrity, because we need the whole transaction to calculate its txid. With SW we can do that by introducing a new consensus rule (witness merkle hash), and now we will have two hashes representing a transaction: txid and witness hash. The benefit is that only txid is used as a reference in the blockchain, and this way we solve the malleability issue introduced by scriptSig.
Thanks for your reply. Well certainly we don't want to lose integrity! That is important emphasis thank you. One can split data apart, move it around, stack it in different piles, but if one has thrown out the instructions for how to put it back.. well, one is royally fucked at that point or at least out the original data. So a couple things come to mind: 1) Malleability of TXID has never been an issue or a problem 2) The fundamental data we need for integrity is still the fundamental data we need for integrity. Nothing has really changed. If you come up with a clever way to store data that helps miners be efficient, that's great. Not that any of them would bother looking here anyway for such ideas. Nor would they care if pull requests are "approved". Just grab the code and run it if you like. Here? No but they certainly look up to the Core devs, right or wrong. "Just grab the code and run it" is pretty much the definition of a miners enforced soft fork, no? |
|
|
|
But at least you understand that BIP101 will increase the risk of centralization. However for SW proposal, I totally don't understand anything at all: By changing the bitcoin architecture, Pieter essentially change it to something else, an alt-coin. So all the talks about SW should go into alt-coin section, not here. And all this large degree of deviation from Satoshi's original design for what? A mere one time increase for capacity of light nodes, not even helping full nodes?
I've been quite surprised by your reaction to this proposal. It's as if you're being intentionally obtuse because clearly you are making no effort at understanding SW and overexagerate its complexity. Whether or not you agree with its motivations and underlying ideology SW is pretty straight forward. ... to allow more spam. thank you but no thank you. forkers should create their own altcoin already. I also enjoy the opinions of people at Qntra (or #b-a/trilema) but in this particular case I'm pretty certain they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not suggesting they don't understand the proposition but it seems that their response is more or less a knee-jerk reaction. Under SW full nodes will still verify and store every signature pertaining to their respective transactions. |
|
|
|
But at least you understand that BIP101 will increase the risk of centralization. However for SW proposal, I totally don't understand anything at all: By changing the bitcoin architecture, Pieter essentially change it to something else, an alt-coin. So all the talks about SW should go into alt-coin section, not here. And all this large degree of deviation from Satoshi's original design for what? A mere one time increase for capacity of light nodes, not even helping full nodes?
I've been quite surprised by your reaction to this proposal. It's as if you're being intentionally obtuse because clearly you are making no effort at understanding SW and overexagerate its complexity. Whether or not you agree with its motivations and underlying ideology SW is pretty straight forward. |
|
|
|
You make it sound like Core just resurrected Hitler and reinstated the third reich.
IIRC that's not planned until 0.14. That is a very dark joke theymos, I might even go as far as to say that it is distasteful.  |
|
|
|
|
nice little fight at 3000
|
|
|
|
bye bye shorts !!  |
|
|
|
1. Depending on how it plays out, it's not guaranteed that the price will rise. It might collapse instead. Is that right?  2. Bitcoin is a high tech payment network with hundreds of use cases. Restricting it to this one use case of capital flight is pretty narrow minded and an insult to bitcoin. A real bull would want bitcoin to succeed in its own merits. A high tech payment network capable of supporting a giant 4 transaction seconds. Please. Who made you the high magistrate of the holy court of real bulls? Who the hell am I answering to here but if not for a Speculation forum failed chartist? Bitcoin is the plan B. Capital flight is not narrow minded it is the cause of its existence. Satoshi created it to save us from debased currencies. Now the rate and means by which you choose to escape is only determined by the individual users. Some call it speculation, some call it store of value, alternative currency. All of this is the creation of an economy that works, a matter of fact, outside of the current financial system. This sort of reflexion stems from the persistent egocentrism found amount "high tech payment network" derps.
3. The price would be much higher if bitcoin went mainstream in a thriving economy with government approval, rather than a negative environment with no spending and only storage. Things would be growing, and money would circulate hundreds of times faster.
Mainstream products with government approval is exactly what Bitcoin stands to deprecate. "No spending and only storage" is often referred to as savings which is the financial responsible things to do in a deflationary economy. A fantastic remedy to the consumerism disease. What you're effectively trying to do is stick inflationary fiat bullshit on top of Bitcoin. It won't work. |
|
|
|
I wonder why you didn't close this thread yet? XT is done, thus there is no need to discuss it. I thought about it but recent developments suggests the f0rkers still have some tricks up their sleeves so for the sake of noobs this thread is beneficial. Consider it as some sort of public service announcement against these scammers. |
|
|
|
Perhaps some think this is next   |
|
|
|
Am I the only one feeling strong urges to puke everytime this politician muppet shows up with his endless verbiage. Cypherpunks write code. That is why you are so powerless and ineffective in your attempt to overthrow Core's oversight of the protocol. All you've got going for you is braindead articles of federation while Core is busy churning out code. If you desire to be part of you so-called "governance" process then first run a node & second get busy contributing to the open-source repo or STFU. Github or go home.
 |
|
|
|
So anybody knows wtf is happening at Coinbase |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the only crypto-assets with gold-like features. They will undoubtly accumulate it as reserves.
In fact it's more likely they eventually use these reserves to spawn their own fiat-crypto.
Enters the Bitcoin standard.
42coin is rarer.... Also worthless because people don't trust it for fundamental reasons. Has nothing to do with rarity. |
|
|
|
point 5 Winklevoss trust. buying baskets in allotments of 2000 coins a time,
definetly will be a price riser
point 6.
... um no just no..
they will make their own coin
Bitcoin is the only crypto-assets with gold-like features. They will undoubtly accumulate it as reserves. In fact it's more likely they eventually use these reserves to spawn their own fiat-crypto. Enters the Bitcoin standard. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
.
