|
I skimmed through, so excuse me if I missed it, but:
By introducing additional blockchains, you have in effect increased processing power of the overall system. Might as well increase (or dynamically adjust) the block size limit to achieve the same.
|
|
|
|
Yes I understand the block limit issue but the OP seemed to indicate there is a " scalability issue on top of a scalability issue". . .
Yeah, I wasn't paying close enough attention. You're right the OP seems to be indicating that there is a scalability issue before the blocksize. I agree with you, I don't see it. Me neither. It is worth pointing out that the transactions are not part of what is being repeatedly hashed (with increasing nonce) while mining, only the block header. There is no scalability issue there: hitting the target is equally probable for a block with one or one hundred transactions. OP: is this correct? |
|
|
|
Total payments and total online payments. When do you think bitcoin will become 15 to 18 percent of those? Thanks.
 not sure why you would choose me to try and guess, but here it goes: 15%-18% of overall world trade volume: never. Too much inertia with the old system, too much vested interest in government currencies and gold, and too much room and time for similar, bitcoin-like innovation to creep in. About total online payments (as opposed to POS) - chances are still slim to nil. If no major disasters strike, including unintended/unforseen consequences of the block size limit algorithm, we might get there in a year or two. The trend so far is great, no? What do you think? |
|
|
|
If you were the "bitcoin predictor", when would you say that bitcoin will reach 15 to 18 percent adoption?
Percent of what? like Firefox, Android... etc. That still doesn't answer my question. In case of Firefox, for example, when people talk about adoption percentages, they refer to the percent share of the browser market. What arena are you referring to when you talk about the adoption of bitcoin? Online payments? Overall payments? Online non-government-currency-denominated payments? Currency exchange? Preciuos metal trading? Percent of people's savings? Percent of salaries paid out in various currencies? Online donations? We have to be specific and clear, since bitcoin has so many facets. |
|
|
|
However, the only way to truly be anonymous is by only spending the bitcoins within the bitcoin system.
This is presently true, but only because Bitcoin is still a new, obscure, and therefore unregulated system. As it gets more widely adopted, there will be more attempts to regulate and monitor transactions. Much like a business today is typically required to collect and report information about certain fiat transactions, in the future same AML requirements may apply to businesses within the "bitcoin system". Add to this private consumer-snooping industry which will jump on the bandwagon. You place an order once, with your mailing address, and your coins are tied to your identity. Laundering service is not available due to AML regulations. You may choose to trust your online wallet provider to not disclose your sources of coins (thus acting as a mixer) unless served with a court order, that is all. |
|
|
|
sauce? (I know, just for posterity reasons)
I thought it was clear from the post - the source is Google Trends, with search terms shown on the left of the picture. |
|
|
|
If you were the "bitcoin predictor", when would you say that bitcoin will reach 15 to 18 percent adoption?
Percent of what? |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is an experiment. (Fair warning)
|
|
|
|
Well, Dwolla is quite US-centric as far as I know and probably doesn't offer something different than PayPal (which is NOT included on the trends list...).
Ripple and the freshly launched "Masterpass" by Mastercard might be something to watch as well as Google wallet.
Good points, duly noted. |
|
|
|
|
OP: have you considered trading? You can do or make things to earn bitcoins, you can buy things with bitcoins. I don't see how "all coins will end up in few powerful banks", unless we all decide to give them away and never buy or earn them back.
|
|
|
|
I know, yet another "google trends" thread... but please bear with me. I want to look at search volume for "bitcoin" in the context of various money-transfer options.  As you can see, interest in Bitcoin has always been higher than in Dwolla. Recently we have beaten ukash as well, and are breathing behind moneygram's neck... Even IBAN doesn't seem to far ahead. Granted, people search for "bitcoin" for various reasons, some unrelated to money-transfer schemes, but this comparison is still a good way to understand the level of bitcoin awareness and interest. When somebody asks you "what percent of people has actually heard of Bitcoin?" you can say it's comparable to the percent of people who heard of Moneygram... |
|
|
|
On a related note, the BTC trades usually for 1-2 EUR higher on bitcoin.de.
Yep. Do you recall when it changed? It was trading only marginally higher last year. Is the rally driven by non-US people mainly? Since the rally started, gox usd and virtex cad are often off compared to the bank exchange, with canadian coins being more expensive. This was not the case so often before. Perhaps the rally is universal, but americans tend to sell off more  |
|
|
|
|
I only now realized that hashing is done on the block header only, so it doesn't involve raw transactions. Indeed, there can be no fee market driven by the "scarcity of hashing power" as I claimed above. Unless the algorithm is changed to involve hashing all transactions, the only option is to have a predetermined, and sufficiently small, block size limit (or a predetermined formula for a dynamic limit).
|
|
|
|
To answer your question, limited block space DOES NOT create a market for transaction fees TODAY; But there are still some fees because of the rules clients impose on relayed transactions. However, when the average transaction volume regularly exceeds the space available in a block (i.e. we always reach the maximum block size), this will create a market for transaction fees.
Miners can choose and prioritize processing based on fees paid. They don't today, for the same reason you brought up - block subsidy is still high - but they will in the future. Doesn't this create a market for fees, without limiting the network processing power to the ridiculous ~7 tps? |
|
|
|
I am still trying to form an opinion about the block size limit. One of the problems is that most of related threads attempt to discuss this issue in general, and are therefore extremely broad; a flood of arguments on various facests makes it impossible to stay focused on any one of the important facets. One particular detail that I would like discussed is the question of the economics of transaction fees. This is what got me thinking: Without a sharp constraint on the maximum blocksize there is currently _no_ rational reason to believe that Bitcoin would be secure at all once the subsidy goes down.
Bitcoin is valuable because of scarcity. One of the important scarcities is the limited supply of coins, another is the limited supply of block-space: Limited blockspace creates a market for transaction fees, the fees fund the mining needed to make the chain robust against hostile reorganization.
It seems to me that this is not quite the case. limited block space does not create a market for transaction fees. If it did, there would have been no transaction fees paid nor requested in all the years up to now, because we almost never got close to the limit. In other words, the blockspace has practically not been limited (due to relatively low transaction volume), and yet there are fees. If the above is true, what drives the market for transacion fees? It seems to me that it is the need to validate transactions and have them included in the blockchain: ultimately, it is miner's cost of hashing that creates the market for the fees. Not the (not so) limited block size. What are your thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Add to the list that the so far only two groups to successfully deploy mining ASICs are both based in China.
|
|
|
|
This doesn't make sense at all.
+1 this is BS but, the down trend is happening... no worries tho, it will go bust the all time high sometime next year for sure (provided nothing major happens ex. hard fork or something..) I do not see down trend. I see 20+% up trend. (this mean: next 2 weeks will price be attacking $30 in worst case :-), or BTC will sell in range $35-37 ) denial [see investor emotion cycle] this is a good sign, bears I see a downtrend. Then I change time scale, and I see an uptrend. Zoom in. Downtrend. Zoom in more. Uptrend! Zoom out all the way. Still uptrend. Only people in denial fail to accept this simple fact, and waste time obsessing over naming a particular data set "uptrend" or "downtrend". It's all a matter of completely arbitrary time scale. |
|
|
|
Just curious, how did a "massive crash" from that bullshitter's redditor's post become a "slight price dip" in the title of your post? |
|
|
|
|
Would there be a limit to the number of receipts a bank can sign every 10 minutes?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
