This year: 10$ a coin
Next year 50$ a coin
what do you think ?
i don't really see this happening. this is a grassroots community in a vast ocean of new cryptocurrencies, not like when bitcoin was a one-of-a-kind. i definitely see a bright future, but $50 per kg in 2 years seems a little hasty. i'll guess $4-5 by the end of the year. can't see far enough ahead to predict 2 years Don't say it can't in case bitcoin continues to fail so hard as it does - uno provides the direct solution to most btc problems afterall. All it takes is one haleluja on coindesk for example and we're off to the moon. There could be some domino effects happening - it's the internet, you know. Information spreads fast and things... |
|
|
|
but for real, though, the guy i REALLY want to hear from, and who's opinion would hold the most weight with me would be Blazr2. that guy is the real deal.
+1000 After all Blazr2 is to UNO what Satoshi is to Bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
@Bitcoin/Gavincoin/Mpcoin
Oh man! I don't believe in any of those but when it comes down to the war i'm with Mpcoin as i think it will be the surving coin if it can overcome the first difficulty adjustement for many reasons (but not going too far offtopic here). In this chaos nobody is going to invest in bitcoin - that's certain.
I will not be able to afford running Gavincoin as i don't have enough bandwidth or HD and i think normal people have neither so bitcoin looses it's userbase and will no longer be able to compete sufficiently due to wastefullness with peoples' recouces.
(If you want we can discuss the bitcoin missle crisis and civil war in the offtopic thread, maybe someone can provide a link so i don't have to search for it?)
@Changes in Uno
Not a good idea right now.
|
|
|
|
Allowing for that rational line being above zero, the question is if that rational limit pays for the security we need to sustain. See my previous calc. on transaction fees needed.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482I am not sure the numbers are completely sound so I am not saying rely on them like gospel but more as a thought exercise. I think the underlying study that Gavin relied on has some pretty worst case assumptions backed in and the average miner is probably going to be better connected than the average non-miner. Still even assuming they estimate is 10x actual cost the idea that there is no cost is simply not supported. A 1 satoshi fee (or even 100 satoshi fee) for all intents and purposes is a no fee transaction. As for fees making up the difference of the subsidy cut ... they won't. However at the current time the network is probably overprotected relative to the actual economic value of the transactions occurring on it. Subsidies tend to do that in any market. So over the next five years the difference caused by the two halvings will be compensated by a combination of a) some reduction in overall security, b)the rise in the exchange rate as miners costs are mostly in fiat terms, and c)rise in overall block fees. the problem is: on gavincoin low fees will lead very fast to reaching the blocklimit again. If the space is there and it's cheap it will be filled with one crap or another. So reaching the 20MB limit will likely occure way sooner than most think in case fees are too low. Gavincoin is basically a proposal for socialist central planning (first on fees and later on moneysupply) |
|
|
|
If there is a constant push for one blockchain, then it is only the result of what users seem to want. If users really wanted multiple blockchains, then alt coins would be much more popular.
read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=921887.0 |
|
|
|
the only rational answer to why the constant push for only one blockchain is: greed (possibly those people are too lazy or stupid to invest in other projects or trade other coins) another point: all the HYPE feeds on this - it's simple marketing, lies, propaganda yes, it stifles real innovation and yes, it's even dangerous to the crypto-endavour as you correctly point out and yes, it's inconsistent with the idea of decentralisation and you are probably about to get flamed for noticing it  |
|
|
|
it isn't necessary right now, people feel it's forced upon them, people don't like the idea of huge chain, there have been no alternatives presented ... and a lot more reasons.
As it stands now i think the fork will end both post-fork-coins. In any case it was bad PR.
I think once a coin has become so big with such a cap you just don't fork it. You let it run and try to preserve it while pushing out more sophisticated stuff in form of new chains. No idea what justifies to put people in this stress when Mr. Andresen can just release his visa-dream-coin in altsection and see if it finds a buyer. What's the problem about that? Are bitcoin bagholders too lazy to trade some coins or what's the problem? I don't see a reason to drag the entire userbase and investors into this shit when an altcoin can be released. This whole act is not justified and is in no way constructive. Bitcoin became the joke of the internet over night with this proposal shit. It's totally irrational.
So i do understand very good all the trolling now. And maybe we should rename the forum post-fork to gavincointalk, who knows?
Okay so after releasing software and it gets spread to many users you don't upgrade it? Solid logic there. Should Facebook cease work on its website due to the high number of users? The problem is that we haven't had something like Bitcoin. In the case of a company (e.g. Facebook), it can force changes easily, but with a decentralized community it won't work like that. The Bitcoin community is full of different people, most of them don't really understand the protocol (they think and say that they do). These so called 'supporters' that are against the fork, will actually be the people who caused the death of both forks (if it comes to that). updating and hardforking are not the same thing. The rest was tl,dr |
|
|
|
at least not climatechange
Do I need to spell it out for you? a·nal·o·gy/əˈnaləjē/ nounnoun: analogy; plural noun: analogiesa comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"•a correspondence or partial similarity. "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"•a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"•Logic a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects. synonyms: similarity, parallel, correspondence, likeness, resemblance, correlation, relation, kinship, equivalence, similitude, metaphor, simile
"there's a thinly veiled analogy between his fiction and his real life"
antonyms: dissimilarity •Linguistics a process by which new words and inflections are created on the basis of regularities in the form of existing ones. •Biology the resemblance of function between organs that have a different evolutionary origin. false analogy: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogyjust to draw an analogy doesn't make your analogy an argument. I can compare bitcoin to the weather too and draw all kinds of conclusions. Good night.  |
|
|
|
Person who claims we should argue with facts and not opinions uses memes for their arguments. at least not climatechange / the weather |
|
|
|
 Too much now. Need to go. You figure it out...
You keep going but keep coming back. now i'm out. Need sleep. Tomorrow maybe back. |
|
|
|
there are already solutions for the conversion worked on. Conversion between currencies will not be a problem. Everything can be denominated in btc without the need to be actually btc. Don't know what's so hard to understand about it.
It doesn't make sense to bloat to 1 terrabyte in a year and force every user to download all these microtransactions when using another chain is the most rational thing. Man, i'm getting tired. I'm out for now.
Are these currencies pegged to Bitcoin? If not, when why should I choose not to use Bitcoin? not 'pegged' ... 'pegged' isn't possible. 'peg' doesn't even exist. Crypto is freely convertible actually or just virtual (convert without converting) ... but that's likely too deep now since you are still stuck with the idea of an impossible 'peg'. You can use bitcoin wiithout using the btc chain - it's totally possible with altchains and those tokens are convertible - actually or virtually. Too much now. Need to go. You figure it out... sidechains = pipedreams, doesn't exist most these pro-fork people are dancers in the sky with no grip on reality. |
|
|
|
I don't think having another coin for micro transactions is a good idea.
For example, I have a bank account, but also have bills in my wallet and change in my pocket. If all these were different currencies, it would be a pain in the ass to know exactly how much money I have. What if I want to withdraw from an ATM? How many Billcoins are my Bankcoins worth? If I buy a coffee and pay with a Billcoin, how many Changecoins will I get in exchange?
there are already solutions for the conversion worked on. Conversion between currencies will not be a problem. Everything can be denominated in btc without the need to be actually btc. Don't know what's so hard to understand about it. It doesn't make sense to bloat to 1 terrabyte in a year and force every user to download all these microtransactions when using another chain is the most rational thing. If i want to use crypto for micro-stuff i will have to download chain of crapcoin X - if i don't intend to use crypto for mini-stuff i will not be forced to download all that shit. Your hardfork proposal is inefficient, risky, unnessary, irrational. Man, i'm getting tired. I'm out for now. |
|
|
|
my point is:
Your FUD of a "chain grinding to halt" is pure FUD and has been proven to be wrong by me - i have shown in case the blocklimit will be reached microtransactions will go to a cheaper chain and bitcoin is better off without them as they only cause bloat and use expensive recources with little need to do so. So reaching the blocklimit at least for a while will do more good than harm and will in no way cause the chain to grind to halt. All the urgency that people want to imply here is false FUD
Now carry on.
Who are you to decide where these will go? do you want to decide they need to be on the btc chain by all means? I didn't decide a thing - i was just showing your conclusions you draw from the projections are inaccurate at best. |
|
|
|
|
my point is:
Your FUD of a "chain grinding to halt" is pure FUD and has been proven to be wrong by me - i have shown in case the blocklimit will be reached microtransactions will go to a cheaper chain and bitcoin is better off without them as they only cause bloat and use expensive recources with little need to do so. So reaching the blocklimit at least for a while will do more good than harm and will in no way cause the chain to grind to halt. All the urgency that people want to imply here is false FUD
Now carry on.
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else?
Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions.
Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin?
Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees?
Obviously we don't share the same vision of the future, maybe that's the problem. Can you explain to me why microtransation MUST occure on the bitcoin chain secured with huge and expensive hashpower? It wouldn't get more expensive because there are more transactions. Finding a block, doesn't have anything to do with how much transactions are there. You dodged my question about the fees growth. to not doge your question i would have to go look somewhere - i was reading a comment from Luke Jr. how bitcoin is specifically not good for microtransactions and i think he has that right. Smaller fees are possible on some crapcoin that isn't secured with such expensive hash and it's fully rational to say 'for transactions below 2$ reddcoin is secure enough and that shit doesn't need to be on btc chain. You really want to keep satoshi dice on chain don't you? But i don't see why i need terrabytes on my PC full of satoshi dice crap ... |
|
|
|
i never said anything about climate change deying and in fact i don't even care because this discussion isn't about the weather. You want to start a discussion about climatechange now? Seriously?
I used climate change as an anology about how we can't get 100% consensus even on scientific facts. Then you reply to me with absurdities about unicorns and such. The problem is not climate change, but the fact that you seem to disregard logical reasoning, something that is needed to determine whether the proposed change in the Bitcoin protocol is a good idea or not. how is you arguing with a comparison to climatechange less absurd than unicorns? You are the one disregarding logical reasoning, not me. |
|
|
|
It's not a hypothesis it is fact
Facts can not, by definition, reside in the future. So it is not a fact that if I stop breathing I will die? Try it. Stop breathing. Are you dead? exactly. Isn't possbile to die by holding the breath That's the fact. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else?
Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions.
Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin?
Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees?
Obviously we don't share the same vision of the future, maybe that's the problem. Can you explain to me why microtransation MUST occure on the bitcoin chain secured with huge and expensive hashpower?
Oh, fuck. So you ARE one of those people that think climate change is not real. There's no point arguing with you, then.
-ad hominem -i did not say that -you are offtopic you lost the argument threefold I never said your argument was invalid because you were a climate change denier. If you don't think climate change is real but neither that it's fake, then what do you think? i never said anything about climate change deying and in fact i don't even care because this discussion isn't about the weather. You want to start a discussion about climatechange now? Seriously?  |
|
|
|
Oh, fuck. So you ARE one of those people that think climate change is not real. There's no point arguing with you, then.
-ad hominem -i did not say that -you are offtopic you lost the argument threefold |
|
|
|
This exactly, there will be a time that we run into the 1MB block limit. This needs to be fixed before the blockchain grinds to a halt (maxes out on TPS really) and transactions take forever to confirm.
this is exactly what will NOT happen. The chain will not grind to a halt. You have no evidence to back that claim up. It's just fearmongering/FUD /doom preaching |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
