So what if he/they make a decision sometime late 2016/early 2017, and it turns out to be the "wrong" one? Will they spend three years to change that as well?
If it can't offer enough people usability then other systems will and it'll die. It's a trillion miles away from being 'too big to fail'. I can see why they'd grind to a halt but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and the world is a fast moving place that don't give a shit about Bitcoin's nobility. This works only under the presumption that Bitcoin competes only on the basis of transaction throughput which it does not. |
|
|
|
Then, again, miscommunication -- unless you consider the likes of Mircea Popescu "not status quo", which would be just plain twisting of words.
I don't have any idea what his opinion is about this. In other subjects in the past he's been completely right about the subject matter, excessive in his language. Something that has happened also to Luke. This doesn't make them any less right when they are right. Then again, how exactly is status quo an irrational stance? |
|
|
|
There is no reason why they couldn't just implement BIP101 and simply change the blocksize limit again if the assumptions behind BIP101 turns out not to be true.
Oh please  |
|
|
|
This looks very promising. I like that you can get in and out without fees, and only a 0.5% fee on trades. However, I see that they do not process EFT deposits right now. "Our apologies, EFT Funding is temporarily unavailable. To access additional account funding options, please contact our support team. " +2 for fund your account with gold within 48hrs though! And withdraw in gold for 5% fee, interesting. What bank are you using? |
|
|
|
I'm sure closed source, pay Blockstream per month, federated chains, using multi sig secured collateral have a place in the ecosystem. I welcome them and applaud the effort in their creation.
However, there is a real concern regarding the motivations of veto wielding devs. Are they making decisions that would be best for Bitcoin, or decisions that might mold Bitcoin towards an environment that benefits Blockstream software products?
Their Bitcoin-related solutions surely would benefit from what is best for Bitcoin, wouldn't you think? |
|
|
|
Turning the Blockchain into a pure high-stake clearing network before it had a chance to establish itself as a useful, reliable tool for smaller transactions is not without risk either.
The XT approach was pretty odious but no more odious than the twitching whack jobs who believe the planetary population will skip Christmas so they can afford those gorgeous Bitcoin transaction fees. They won't have to, they'll use open source payment layers. |
|
|
|
Why do you need this again  he needs you to want this, because he wants BTS price to go higher... ...reported and hopefully will be moved to altcoin discussion I could care less about BTS prices. All I am considering is ways to facilitate easier and low cost BTC trading, as I described in my above post. Why not use traditional exchanges? Understand that if you trade out of Bitcoin to their fiat-denominated "assets" there are considerable risks. First BitShares is not exactly decentralized, it relies on a certain number of masternodes. Exchanges are somewhat liable & regulated to a certain extent so that you have some type of recourse if your fiat deposit disappears, that is not the case with BitShares. Do you really wanna trust your coin to a completely unproven and relatively shady cryptosystem with no public figures behind it? Actually, you may be correct that there may be more risk than is within my tolerance levels, and I suppose that is the reason that I am asking for the input of others before I delve in (even with only a small part of my BTC holdings). Actually, I had also been considering Gemini for a similar purpose (since their fees only seem to be around .25% at the time being, but if I could accomplish some trading with even lower fees (without suffering too much risk), then I would be interested in that even more. BitReserve has 0% conversion fees between currencies. Again, I wouldn't trust them with any significant amount and I'm not certain what type of regulations they are under... |
|
|
|
what is the use of this option, for the purpose of btc trading that you can do it where you are going to trade , their you will find the transaction record.
I am NOT sure if I understand your question, because maybe I am NOT sufficiently familiar with how the exchange would work. I was of the understanding that once a person establishes an account, then s/he can designate holdings as s/he likes and then change that designation at any time with minimal fees. If there is (are) some other exchange-like services that allow the same kind of functionaity (that may even be better), then I would be interested in hearing about those kinds of possibilities. Maybe what you're looking for is something like BitReserve? Of course it is centralized but I would certainly trust them more than BitShares. |
|
|
|
Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.
It already happened! Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB. I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.
You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.
This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away. Hey! We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now  Said the fulltime BS shill who's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream. I'd much rather shill for BS than cypherdoc & his clowns posse  |
|
|
|
Why do you need this again he needs you to want this, because he wants BTS price to go higher... ...reported and hopefully will be moved to altcoin discussion I could care less about BTS prices. All I am considering is ways to facilitate easier and low cost BTC trading, as I described in my above post. Why not use traditional exchanges? Understand that if you trade out of Bitcoin to their fiat-denominated "assets" there are considerable risks. First BitShares is not exactly decentralized, it relies on a certain number of masternodes. Exchanges are somewhat liable & regulated to a certain extent so that you have some type of recourse if your fiat deposit disappears, that is not the case with BitShares. Do you really wanna trust your coin to a completely unproven and relatively shady cryptosystem with no public figures behind it? |
|
|
|
Why do you need this again |
|
|
|
Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.
It already happened! Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB. I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.
You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.
This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away. Hey! We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now |
|
|
|
Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
One could ask why using bitcoin at all when banks are already working on their own permissioned blockchain. Because I can use Bitcoin peer-to-peer. At least now with Liquid if I choose to use an exchange to trade or whatever then I expose myself to a more distributed risk model wherein if one exchange fails or gets compromised my funds are not at risk of vanishing. How Liquid is this more P2P than banks permissioned blockchain again? Je sais pas si c'est ton retard mental qui s'incruste dans ta grammaire, mais ta phrase fait aucun sens. It makes absolute sense if you go reread my original question which you didn't answered at all. Liquid is not meant to be used as a P2P transaction system, neither are permisionned blockchain. The point is that using Liquid is entirely voluntary and if you choose to opt-out and use a purely peer-to-peer network (Bitcoin) you can. For that you still need the bitcoin blockchain to scale properly. Indeed. Fortunately smarter minds have realized this is not done by simply raising the block size So how then? AFAIK this is the only viable solution available right now. Well obviously you've painted me into a certain corner by using the term "bitcoin blockchain". The more correct interpretation and the more healthy alternative is to keep Bitcoin's blockchain at a minimal size and use additional, trustless layers (LN, voting pools), to scale the Bitcoin ecosystem |
|
|
|
Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
One could ask why using bitcoin at all when banks are already working on their own permissioned blockchain. Because I can use Bitcoin peer-to-peer. At least now with Liquid if I choose to use an exchange to trade or whatever then I expose myself to a more distributed risk model wherein if one exchange fails or gets compromised my funds are not at risk of vanishing. How Liquid is this more P2P than banks permissioned blockchain again? Je sais pas si c'est ton retard mental qui s'incruste dans ta grammaire, mais ta phrase fait aucun sens. It makes absolute sense if you go reread my original question which you didn't answered at all. Liquid is not meant to be used as a P2P transaction system, neither are permisionned blockchain. The point is that using Liquid is entirely voluntary and if you choose to opt-out and use a purely peer-to-peer network (Bitcoin) you can. For that you still need the bitcoin blockchain to scale properly. Indeed. Fortunately smarter minds have realized this is not done by simply raising the block size |
|
|
|
Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
One could ask why using bitcoin at all when banks are already working on their own permissioned blockchain. Because I can use Bitcoin peer-to-peer. At least now with Liquid if I choose to use an exchange to trade or whatever then I expose myself to a more distributed risk model wherein if one exchange fails or gets compromised my funds are not at risk of vanishing. How Liquid is this more P2P than banks permissioned blockchain again? Je sais pas si c'est ton retard mental qui s'incruste dans ta grammaire, mais ta phrase fait aucun sens. It makes absolute sense if you go reread my original question which you didn't answered at all. Liquid is not meant to be used as a P2P transaction system, neither are permisionned blockchain. The point is that using Liquid is entirely voluntary and if you choose to opt-out and use a purely peer-to-peer network (Bitcoin) you can. |
|
|
|
Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
One could ask why using bitcoin at all when banks are already working on their own permissioned blockchain. Because I can use Bitcoin peer-to-peer. At least now with Liquid if I choose to use an exchange to trade or whatever then I expose myself to a more distributed risk model wherein if one exchange fails or gets compromised my funds are not at risk of vanishing. How Liquid is this more P2P than banks permissioned blockchain again? Je sais pas si c'est ton retard mental qui s'incruste dans ta grammaire, mais ta phrase fait aucun sens. |
|
|
|
The victim mentality over there is really something else  |
|
|
|
Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
One could ask why using bitcoin at all when banks are already working on their own permissioned blockchain. Because I can use Bitcoin peer-to-peer. At least now with Liquid if I choose to use an exchange to trade or whatever then I expose myself to a more distributed risk model wherein if one exchange fails or gets compromised my funds are not at risk of vanishing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
