The free market provides a solution. When the block size fills up, people will pay higher transaction fees to get their transactions through. Free riders paying zero or low transaction fees won't get their transactions processed.
The block size can only be increased if the big miners agree, and it's not in their interest to increase it.
If it hits 0.1 BTC to send one satoshi then the only people left will be miners. The free market will go somewhere they're not going to be raped. BTC is purely optional and sometimes a prime pain up the arse. It wouldn't take all that much for people to abandon it before it gets going. Kudos, a big +1 here gentlemand. |
|
|
|
You're completely ignoring that it requires 100,000,000 satoshi to make up a full bitcoin all of which are limited. If you are ready to "get over the mindset" I will happily trade you 1 satoshi for your one bitcoin right now. I mean it's just a value being assigned by integer increments, right?
I'm not saying that 1 sat = 1 BTC. I'm saying that 1 sat has the same blockchain/transactional capability as 1 BTC. This is where the "If 21M people want BTC, we hit the utility ceiling!" argument falls apart. Are you saying that the potential exists for transactional demand to surpass a supply of 2.1 quadrillion fungible units, when the primary argument for Bitcoin centers around its functional value over otherwise perfectly usable dollars? BenThe argument does not fall apart. If there is incredible demand and I can only get my hands on 0.001 bitcoin, I can not assign a value to it and send it to a recipient. The value is set elsewhere. If one bitcoin is worth $2 and I need to send $4 to someone then I have to come up with 2 bitcoins, period. I can not send them 0.001 and tell them to treat it as if it's worth more. You asked for an intelligent discussion then you refuse to acknowledge simple supply and demand rules that have been proven again and again. I can admit I don't know the future. The price could go to $0 or to $100,000 in 10 years. Stating that the price will never cross (X) is short sighted and foolish. |
|
|
|
If there is enough adoption 21 million coins is not enough to go around. ... If 21 million people were interested in bitcoin the price would easily head north of 4 figures.
I strongly disagree, for this simple fact: one satoshi carries exactly the same transactional capability and benefit to consumers/merchants as does one full Bitcoin. People need to get over the mindset of $1/ BTC1, i.e., value being assigned in integer increments. The current Bitcoin protocol provides for a maximum of 21M BTC x 100M sat = 2.1 QUADRILLION units of fungible supply. BenYou're completely ignoring that it requires 100,000,000 satoshi to make up a full bitcoin all of which are limited. If you are ready to "get over the mindset" I will happily trade you 1 satoshi for your one bitcoin right now. I mean it's just a value being assigned by integer increments, right? |
|
|
|
|
There's a really simple explanation. The cost per coin could easily head north of $300 again when demand out weighs the supply. If there is enough adoption 21 million coins is not enough to go around. Also the currency velocity is a dull argument, bitcoin's only purpose is not for transactions but also a store of wealth and possibly even a reserve currency one day. We are still in a high inflationary area of the new bitcoins per day, but needless to say this drastically decreases over time. It's a digital asset that cannot be faked. If 21 million people were interested in bitcoin the price would easily head north of 4 figures. There's a lot more to the bitcoin price than just mining costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh, I grow tiresome of the debate regarding the blocksize. To me it is clear it needs to be increased but other solutions are needed as well. You can't tell people not to "spam" the blockchain with micro-transactions because they will do it anyways. The "spam" txs will fill the current block pushing "real" transactions to wait for the next block. Increase the blocksize should solve this. My current blocks folder is 37.2 GB, and it will keep growing. Maybe some sort of abridged chain or pruning will come into play? The last 6 blocks were all under 500kb so just because if they increase it to 5 or 10MB doesn't mean we will all start having 5 or 10MB block sizes. Anyways, I'm all for kicking the can down the road for now, better than another story for the media on why bitcoin died again.
|
|
|
|
GBTC has been trading for 2 days. Shares have went for a premium over market price. Demand outweighs supply. All asks are being bought. Most shareholders don't want to sell. Flop?
I was just about to post nearly the same thing regarding the "flop" comment. I can't see how you call GBTC a flop. There are buyers, just not very many sellers. GBTC isn't an ETF. If you are expecting high volume and frequent back and forth trades with GBTC you will be disappointed. |
|
|
|
GBTC has started trading with no affect on market price...yet. Only been 2 days. Next significant date seems to be may 18th when NASDAQ Stockholm begins trading xbt provider which says they will back all shares bought with bitcoin. Seems like this could have a much more immediate affect on price. Volume will also be waaaay higher to start.
Are you sure? Is there a source for this? It'll be traded on NASDAQ Stockholm and there is no 12 month maturity date, so it will trade a lot closer to how an ETF would. I too suspect the volume should be greater than GBTC's. This is speculation, no source. |
|
|
|
It is essentially another cloud wallet, that stores all data needed to spend the money on servers
I thought this is a multisig 2 of 3 wallet, where the user's device holds a key, CASE's server holds another and  ?? holds the 3rd key. No response from OP regarding my recovery question. Not a good impression to make on your own thread of your own product. |
|
|
|
|
I like the case design better than the trezor. I asked them on their own thread about recovery in case they go offline or disappear and they didn't respond :/
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be joining this campaign, looks like a good one.
|
|
|
|
|
No not 24/7. I boot up my bitcoin core wallet almost everyday to keep a full copy of the blockchain, but I don't run it all day; it puts too much stress on my little laptop and electricity is expensive where I live so I don't want to leave my desktop running.
|
|
|
|
GBTC data from OTCQX page at end of day:
Date day's price range day's volume
---------------+----------------------+-------------
2015-05-04 37.98 -- 42.00 765
2015-05-05 55.00 -- 94.86 435
At this rate one GBTC share will be worth $2,000 in no time!  |
|
|
|
|
Payment received 2 days ago, thanks!
I'll be leaving this campaign now, it's not a good fit for me. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
Classic Bear Grylls trap.  |
|
|
|
Does anyone know, if coinkite goes down, will I be able to recover my bitcoins using the resources provided?
(3) Mnemonics 24 words per BIP39. One for each of the keys used for the multisig address.
(3) HD wallet base58 per BIP32
(3) Master Secret in Hex
I'd like to see someone demonstrate how to do this, because I don't think it's possible. To send from a multisig address using bitcoin core client you need the redeemScript and m of n private keys, you can then use this to create a raw transaction and access your coins. I guess you can get the redeemScript yourself if you have the correct public keys (1) in the correct order... With the info coinkite is providing you it looks like they are providing you with info that is not compatible with bitcoin core. (1) example 66 chars [0-9A-F] : 0347f3394ff0a223332b1de34d51c4cd5cd381d390c890b82fbd00af059f22e19d |
|
|
|
|
Looks really cool! Will I still be in control of my coins if Case fails? Since it's 2 of 3, one is signed on my Case device, the other is on Case's server, where is 3rd key? And do they provide sufficient multisig info required for me to execute a raw transaction myself in bitcoin core incase Case the company disappears?
|
|
|
|
All sales websites should be running bitcoind or similar and not be dependant on a remote service.
Personally, I think that is bad advice. Every small shop owner that decides to accept bitcoin should NOT be forced to run a full bitcoind node on their server. If that were the case bitcoin would fail. Bitcoin needs 3rd parties and lite clients to make the process easier for integration. Blockchain.info API offers an amazing service absolutely free. Yes it does go down from time to time, but the trade off is well worth it. I can register a website and hosting and start accepting bitcoin on my new website using blockchain.info's API in a few hours. No time needed to download the blockchain and no extra bloat to my servers bandwidth from having to run bitcoind. As for the OP's question, sounds like bc.info is having some tech difficulties with the payment forwarding. The receive payments API should come back shortly. |
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that electrum supported multisig. Anyways, when you create a multisig address using the pubkeys the order you enter them DOES matter.
addy1 + addy2 + addy3 = multisig1
addy1 + addy3 + addy2 = multisig2
Does coinkite provide you with the reedemscript?
|
|
|
|
Earlier today, the Ask Price column entries changed from "U" to "In." Now it's back to "U."
What was that all about?
Interesting! It could mean we might see some action tomorrow after 9 AM  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
