I've taken your example and I simply projected the results of an increase.
Where is the strawman argument? The strawman is in that you focused on the example (traffic) rather than the core of the argument (blocksize and L2). If you think that once we built twice as many highways and roads we will have twice the traffic you can show us from where we will get those numbers.
If we make three new highways between Ney York and Philadelphia will they all 3 be congested the same as the current roads while the rest keeping the same?
Sorry, but yours is one, not mine!
The exaggeration is exactly in your argument, that somehow twice as many poeple will be on the roads just because there are more roads.
Absurdities aside though, induced demand is a well known and well studied real world phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demandThere may be short term relief, but in the long term you're generally not much better off than before, congestion wise. The tricky part is finding the sweet spot in terms of blocksize with the added challenge that increasing blocksize is pretty much a one-way street.
Since now we have around 10-20% maximum spare capacity before fees spiking and another maybe 10-20% till making even opening an LN channel too pricy, for the fun of it saying that one user opens and closes only a channel a year, can you let me know in what century will the entire population of the earth manage to get in? Oh, let's drop just to that of Europe because obviously there is a catch in that!  I have a feeling that sweet spot is nowhere near 1 or 4 Mb. In the long term Channel Factories should significantly alleviate this part of the problem: https://wiki.ion.radar.tech/tech/research/channel-factoryI'm not arguing that increasing the blocksize in the future should be completely dismissed, I'm just saying that linear scaling alone won't be enough. Point being, if you increase the blocksize limit to a value that makes on-chain transactions just as cheap as LN transactions then no one's going to use LN. Why should they? There's nothing to gain except a warm fuzzy feeling that you kept the blockchain just a bit smaller. The tricky part is finding the sweet spot in terms of blocksize with the added challenge that increasing blocksize is pretty much a one-way street.
Bitcoin Cash already did that, however because their userbase is nowhere near as large as ours, we can't properly compare our average transaction fee to theirs. Theirs is about $0.01 USD or a penny - but we can't compare this to our $5 $6 $7 because the BCH network doesn't have a comparable transaction volume. It's also hard to compare due to the difference in exchange rate. As of right now 1 sat/b is viable with Bitcoin as well, albeit you might have to wait a few blocks. Around 10 sat/b should guarantuee placement in the next block which is only relatively expensive because Bitcoin itself got so expensive. That's the thing with "people going elsewhere" though, I'm not quite sure where they supposedly went. Because they sure didn't go for Bitcoin Cash and its hard forks. Ethereum, maybe, but in terms of fees they aren't looking so hot right now either. Admittedly there's alts that I personally prefer for moving assets between exchanges, however at least to me they are completely interchangeable with any other alt and nothing I'd hold over the long term. |
|
|
|
Looks like the current community stance is already closer to rethinking future blocksize increases than expected? There have been multiple times even this year, that the mempool has been too full and people have turned away from using Bitcoin to go to scamcoins or back to fiat due to the transaction fees being way too high.
When that happens and then it dies down, that simply means it failed and people went elsewhere.
The mempool mostly filled up due to heavy price fluctuations leading to people moving coins on and off exchanges rather than "regular" usage though. Not even mentioning the sudden hashrate drop when Chinese miners went offline due to the power outage in April. I'm not saying that full blocks don't exist, I'm just saying that it's not the every day state of Bitcoin. Despite everything average Bitcoin fees (in terms of BTC) have gone down compared to the last time we saw these type of market fluctuations in 2017. The first, because without economic incentive there would be no reason for people to upgrade (similar to how merely adding new highway lanes doesn't help congestion as car traffic increases to meet up with supply)
Oh god!!!, again with this argument for the public transport against the ones not wanting to depend on sticking busses and metro. So, if we increase the number of lanes on all highways in the US by ten, the number of cars will also increase from 600 per thousand people to 6000/1000? And every single citizen will drive around in six cars at the same time to increase congestion?  Then probably the only solution to get rid of congestion would be to get id oh highways, so how about we lower the blocks to 100kb so more poeple would migrate to LN? Of course, at this point, we have to ignore the fact that in current conditions without using a centralized solution there is no way in hell for even 10% of the world population to migrate to the LN in the next two decades. That's a strawman you're hitting, not the actual argument. Point being, if you increase the blocksize limit to a value that makes on-chain transactions just as cheap as LN transactions then no one's going to use LN. Why should they? There's nothing to gain except a warm fuzzy feeling that you kept the blockchain just a bit smaller. The tricky part is finding the sweet spot in terms of blocksize with the added challenge that increasing blocksize is pretty much a one-way street. |
|
|
|
But when does this become "okay"?
Looking at current community stance, i guess either when 1. Most scaling solution already deployed and widely adopted. 2. There's huge spike on Bitcoin adoption / usage. I believe it will require a little bit of both. The first, because without economic incentive there would be no reason for people to upgrade (similar to how merely adding new highway lanes doesn't help congestion as car traffic increases to meet up with supply) The second, because blocks need to remain somewhat filled as otherwise there'd be no money for miners as block subsidies subside. Either way it's probably going to be a few more years, if not a decade or so, until a potential blocksize increase will be revisited. |
|
|
|
Hab ich was verpasst oder ist das nur ein Darstellungsfehler bei mir? Sind wir am 10.10 gegen 22Uhr wirklich auf 51K $ gefallen?
Slippage wahrscheinlich. Binance und Kraken sind an dem Tag nicht unter USD 54k gerutscht und bei der Bitstamp 5-Minuten Kerze gabs da ziemlich hohes Volumen, also scheints auch kein bloßer Glitch gewesen zu sein. Ergo dürfte eine Market Order ausgerutscht sein. |
|
|
|
Irgendwie war es ja abzusehen, dass die 1-jährige Haltefrist wohl nicht ewig bestehen bleibt. Bleibt abzuwarten, wie es dann umgesetzt wird. Falls soetwas auch in DE kommt, was ich mir in den nächsten Jahren gut vorstellen kann, hoffe ich, dass alle Krypto's, die vor Inkrafttreten der Änderung gekauft wurden, davon verschont bleiben. So ist es ja auch heute noch für Aktien, die vor dem 01.01.2009 gekauft wurden. Immerhin kann es ja auch den ganzen Anlagehorizont für einige Anleger verändern, falls nun plötzlich Steuern anfallen. Wäre es überhaupt rechtens, eine steuerliche Änderung für Krypto's einzuführen, die gekauft wurden, als die 1jährige Haltefrist galt?  Edit: Mit rechtens meine ich, dass es eine steuerliche Änderung gibt, ohne den bisherigen Hodlern durch eine Übergangsfrist die Möglichkeit zu bieten, die Gewinne steuerfrei zu verkaufen, die bis dahin über ein Jahr gehalten wurden. Also mal als Beispiel: Ich kaufe heute (13.10.2021) einen Bitcoin mit dem Wissen, dass der Gewinn nach einem Jahr steuerfrei ist. Jetzt gibt es eine Änderung und ab dem 13.10.2022 fallen immer pauschal 25% Steuern auf den Gewinn an. Damit hätte man nicht die Möglichkeit, steuerfrei zu vekaufen, obwohl man aber beim Kauf davon ausgegangen ist. Aber naja, sowas kann ich mir nicht vorstellen. Entweder es würden alte Coins von der Änderung komplett unberührt bleiben oder es gäbe eine Übergangsfrist. Was meint ihr? Ich hoffe das es eine Übergangsfrist geben wird weil das konsistent mit der Behandlung von Wertpapieren wäre. Ich fürchte das die Übergangsfrist weg gelassen werden könnte und diese erst vor dem Verfassungsgerichtshof eingeklagt werden müsste. Rechtlich gesehen hätte man damit wahrscheinlich auch nicht so schlechte Chancen aber ob man dann darauf spekulieren (he he) möchte ist eine andere Frage. |
|
|
|
Gibt leider noch zu wenige Infos um das jetzt als "prinzipiell ok" oder "geht garnicht" einstufen zu können. Zu letzterem würde für mich vor allem gehören, wenn sie das "der Einfachheit halber" rückwirkend bis 1.1.2021 einführen, das wär ein richtiger Schlag ins Gesicht, vor allem für viele Neueinsteiger, die ja grad im Hype Anfang des Jahres ihre ersten Coins gekauft haben. Prinzipiell finde ich die Besteuerung mit 27,5% ok, aber eben nur bei Anschaffungen ab 1.1.2022. Ich persönlich erhoffe mir aber endlich Klarheit bei der Besteuerung von Staking. Ich hoffe vor allem das es noch vor in Kraft treten der Gesetzesänderung Rechtsklarheit bzgl. der Altbestände gibt. Das ist in Österreich leider nicht immer ganz selbstverständlich. Worst case müsste es zwar reichen die Coins "nur" kurz über einen Exchange zu schleifen um eine "neue" Kostenbasis zu schaffen um zumindest die bestehenden Kursgewinne steuertechnisch nach altem Schema zu halten, aber wirklich prickelnd finde ich diese Vorstellung auch nicht. |
|
|
|
Another case of plagiarism by the same user: Copy:Never let me explain.
The Lightning Network is a tool designed to leverage smart contracts for settlement of Bitcoin transactions off chain cost efficiently.
With the intent of allowing users to make real time micro payments for services using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Periodically the lightning network communicates with Bitcoin’s blockchain. Updating the ledger to reflect the current status of transactions amongst Lightning networks users.
So it is facilitating transactions that are either to small or need to be conducted to quickly to leverage Bitcoin for. And then periodically updates the Bitcoin Blockchain with the records of the transactions occurring across the network.
There is not currently a proposal I’m aware of to incorporate the Lightning networks code into the Bitcoin Core. And if the code was incorporated there would be no need for it to exist. So I don’t think anyone is incentivized to invest the effort needed to make this happen.
So perhaps I shouldn’t say never. But currently there are no efforts being made to do so.
Original:Never.
Let me explain.
The Lightning Network is a tool designed to leverage smart contracts for settlement of Bitcoin transactions off chain cost efficiently.
With the intent of allowing users to make real time micro payments for services using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Periodically the lightning network communicates with Bitcoin’s blockchain. Updating the ledger to reflect the current status of transactions amongst Lightning networks users.
So it is facilitating transactions that are either to small or need to be conducted to quickly to leverage Bitcoin for. And then periodically updates the Bitcoin Blockchain with the records of the transactions occurring across the network.
There is not currently a proposal I’m aware of to incorporate the Lightning networks code into the Bitcoin Core. And if the code was incorporated there would be no need for it to exist. So I don’t think anyone is incentivized to invest the effort needed to make this happen.
So perhaps I shouldn’t say never. But currently there are no efforts being made to do so. |
|
|
|
Einmal die f bitte und willkommen zurück!  |
|
|
|
|
EUR 58,780,-
Username: heretik2
|
|
|
|
Ich hoffe ich liege falsch aber evergrande macht mir immer noch sorgen. Sollten noch andere dazu kommen, könnte das unsere Party crashen.
Bitcoin muss vorher einfach genug Schwung aufbauen um sich dann im richtigen Moment vom Rest des Marktes zu entkoppeln  |
|
|
|
Not every bubble lasts the same, some last for decades and others for mere hours.
Also, the starting year of 2009 is not when the bubble started as it took until 2017 when Bitcoin hit $20k that the crypto industry started growing.
That makes this bubble around four years old, less than the dot.com bubble.
2017 seems like a rather arbitrary starting point though. Bitcoin has been called a bubble as early as 2011. Heck, 2013 alone saw two bubbles, both of which hit mainstream media at the time. The thing is, when it comes to Bitcoin the term "bubble" has lost all meaning since the market cycles are just much, much faster. Looking at the broader market, stock market bubbles like the dot com bubble or even the 1920s crash ruined people's lives because it took decades to recover. With Bitcoin bubble cycles lasting 4 years each so far getting caught at the top has been less of a problem. Of course there might come a time when the timeframes between ATHs become longer and painful, but when that will be is anyone's guess. Maybe 65k USD was as expensive as BTC ever will get. Maybe 300k will. Or maybe 1MM. We'll see. |
|
|
|
I have seen this kind of argument that just because the price of a commodity is high means that it is a great investment. [...]
General rule of thumb: Don't invest in an asset because its price went up. If the price moving upwards is your only reason to get invested, you'll have no reason to stay invested once the price inevitably drops. That being said, dismissing an asset only because its price is high can be just as bad as blindly investing for the same reason. Arguably pretty much all assets are overvalued these days but remaining on the sidelines can be just as bad a proposition as inflation eats away on your purchasing power while you're waiting for a dip. |
|
|
|
Und da sind die 50K schon Hatte ich euch schon mehrfach vorhergesagt aber ihr mögt meine Analysen ja nicht  Achso das meinte bitcoincidence mit Feuerwerkbildchen! Happy 50k euch allen, aber jetzt kommt erst mal der nächste Hauptboss 53k :X |
|
|
|
|
BTC and 50k... the biggest will they / won't they drama since BTC and 60k.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately Stablecoins are no safe bet either. Withdrawing USDT from Binance via the Ethereum network will set you back ~25 USD,- as well.
Gas prices with the ERC-20 chain has remained at insanely high levels during the last one year or so and the developers have refused to intervene in a meaningful way. If you are using the chain despite all this, then you can't really complain. But I agree. Sometimes the user doesn't have the choice. Most of the bounty payments are being made in ERC-20 tokens. Established projects don't want to move from ERC-20 to some other cheaper chain, because they are not sure about the reliability and scalability of these competitors. Short of major updates there's little to intervene. Decentralized scalability is hard. When people in 2017 were praising Ethereum for its low transaction fees they mistook the lack of usage for better scalability. "Cheaper" chains are only cheap as long as no one is using them. Unless of course they are heavily centralized like XRP or BSC. Then of course there's the question of compatibility. Not all exchanges may support all the blockchains that your stablecoin of choice is running on. So while you could withdraw the stablecoins to your wallet, you may still end up back on the exchange you started from. |
|
|
|
Kraken has a comparably cheap withdrawal fee of 0.00015 BTC. Bitcoin.de lets you set your own fee, but it's a P2P market place that requires SEPA. If you needed the money and just want to convert it to fiat, why not use an altcoin instead like XRP, DOGE or stablecoin which is far cheaper in withdrawal fees? [...]
Unfortunately Stablecoins are no safe bet either. Withdrawing USDT from Binance via the Ethereum network will set you back ~25 USD,- as well. |
|
|
|
|
2 - HeRetiK
Danke cygan und viel Glück an alle!
|
|
|
|
CFTC has imposed this fine because Kraken started offering futures products without registering themselves under the appropriate legal classification.
Well, then, sorry, but they deserve it, don't they? The problem is not when they do wrong and they get fined (again, $1.25M sounds to me like a warning, not something to hurt them badly). The problem is that in many cases there's lack of clarity on what a business has to do to comply. For example (although I don't like Coinbse), see the Coinbase lending vs SEC sagaI hope that I don't mix too badly apples with oranges.USD 1.25 MM definitely sound more like a warning shot than anything else. Given that unlike some other exchanges Kraken has a relatively good standing with regulators around the globe I wouldn't worry too much about it. Still rather unexpected for Kraken's legal team to drop the ball like that. |
|
|
|
TD Ameritrade and several other big platforms restricted trades on shares of GameStop to stop volatility and artificially inflated prices by a bunch of kids from Reddit who thought they are getting rich.
Not quite. Trading on Robinhood was restricted because they were no longer able to meet the collateral requirements of their clearinghouse. If Robinhood had simply halted trading altogether, the backlash would have been limited -- what Robinhood did, however, was restricting the buying of GameStop shares, not the selling. This kind of one-sided trading halt is rather unorthodox and to my knowledge unprecedented. Interestingly most platforms that restricted trading in GameStop shares were neo-brokers like Robinhood. Apart from the occasional trading halt caused by circuit breakers most "proper" brokers did not face any restrictions whatsoever. It goes to show that neo-broker customers are more or less second class citizen in the trading world. In short: If you want to trade stocks, get an account with a proper broker instead of an app that gamifies options trading. If you want to trade cryptocurrencies, go with a cryptocurrency exchange that actually knows what they are doing. And if you want to hold cryptocurrencies, get a hardware wallet or at least a non-custodial software wallet. But to each his own. Some people, for example, will not put a large chunk of money into an unregulated company in Seychelles that can pack up one day and leave with everyone's money. Some people prefer to have SIPC insurance.
I don't know when you last had to deal with cryptocurrency exchanges, but these days pretty much all cryptocurrency exchanges that are taken seriously are properly regulated and not hiding away as questionable off-shore companies. (Binance being the odd one out). Also be aware that SIPC and its international counterparts do not apply to cryptocurrency holdings. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
