Latest posts of: mikeg504

I don't usually write on forums but something like this seems a bit important.

Bitcoin has had a ton of news the past year due to ups, downs, and discussion on 'improvements.' I think people are excited that Bitcoin is doing so well, and so are other cryptocurrencies as a reaction. I noticed miners are fighting over forking, and improving particular features for ensuring its a long term viable option for their own currencies, and business online.

I do not agree though with forking, or splitting into a second coin. I do not think people have really considered the idea that they might kill bitcoin which is already pretty easy to damage. Its pretty early to assume that Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies can take such a hit. I think its safe to assume that if Bitcoin dies, or has any major issues within the next couple of years then it would affect all cryptocurrencies in whole. This in turn would mean that people would be less likely to trust any currencies online for the foreseeable future.

If you consider the stock market and how simple it is for a stock to suffer from news, then you can see how simple it is that these fights are literally going to hurt Bitcoin without any extra effort from the outside. How can anyone believe that splitting a coin into two by possibly hurting peoples money thats already invested into those coins with no real concept of the extent of damage is actually improving? I hope people are considering that there could be people who already do not want Bitcoin to succeed that may be involved in small, or whole. I am not going to go into the possible conspiracies but on the other hand its simple to be accidental as well.

I've read segrevated witness, and understand what forking would entail. I know segregated witness is a bit more 'complex' than the initial setup, although isn't Bitcoin a bit comlpex to begin with? I am not saying its the right direction. Options are available such as using reputable companies that may have some coins in store for processing 'short term' or 'quick' payments and then writing to the blockchain in bigger numbers. This would undermine the security, and could turn into another hack of a vault.

Increasing the blockchain is going to ensure Bitcoin users have to hold more GB on their hard drives, and thus sooner or later like the inevitable will require more people to move to thin clients like Electrum. If you use segregated witness then it is not different than increasing the blockchain though. It is essentially doing a very similar thing. It doesn't require a fork though. In the end.. both are viable options but one will work with the clients currently on the network.

I researched a lot further into bitcoin and noticed that the max clients per day was surfing around 5500. This is exceptionally low considering a network worth 6 billion and thousands of people using it. 5500 is similar to a joke IMO, and I am curious how companies who have invested $100m is not throwing up their own clients just to ensure protection across the network, regardless of them mining.. Bitcoin has major problems without dealing with forking, or people fighting over what to do next. Personally I think the main concern should be stabilizing the network to fight against a possible real attack on the network.

In the end.. don't ruin cryptocurrencies for the world over arguments on the best direction. Maybe other options are easier, or not but if you split the coin say good bye to currencies for another decade that aren't involving major banks.. Maybe you guys should focus more on ensuring Bitcoin's viability with what its currently dealing with. With millions going into mining every month and 5500 total clients: I don't know what you guys are focusing on? $5/shells, etc... Anyways.. just a point of view.