yea, as others have said better then i could, this is not a real problem.
though it sure will be nice when (hopefully) difficulty levels out somewhat...
How is it not a real problem? 10 minute blocks are one of the problems to be solved in Bitcoin. If it wasn't a problem there wouldn't be so many people thinking of solutions. It's clearly a problem. The question is how big of a problem is it? Is it enough to slow down adoption? Will there be solutions found or implemented? Or is it just a minor annoyance that doesn't matter in the modern financial world? |
|
|
|
What is the fully diluted market cap at present?
(18.4 billion * coin price)
It's 1.84 billion total. Half mined after 10 years. I don't feel including the 2nd half is important, but understand you may be thinking very long-term. BTC0.0000668 * 1840000000 XCN = BTC122,912Okay even if we include the 10 years only, BTC60k sounds a little steep, about the price of Monero. How would you even sell this to regular people? What do you say? "It's like Bitcoin but it takes less space on your hard drive if you decide to actually download the blockchain."? Is that the elevator pitch? At least with XMR you can tell the average person that the FBI/NSA ect can easily tell what you're buying with Bitcoin and not so easily with XMR. I don't mean to sound too negative here or disparage new technology. But this market never ceases to amaze me with it's hype. |
|
|
|
|
If the general consensus is that blockchain size is basically a non-issue, why should we think this is anything other than a typical over exuberant run up over novel tech that doesn't really solve any real problems?
|
|
|
|
Isn't the coin stable already? It works to store value and send transactions. What more should the currency do? I think you are confusing stability of the coin with stability of the price.
When people are willing to sell a coin at a price lower than what it cost to produce the coin, that is neither stable or healthy. Think it through. Take off the ideological hats and think like a capitalist. After all, cryptocurrency is capitalism at its most vicious. If you want to play in this sandpit you have to think like that. Low price = low demand = low interest in spending resources on procuring the coin. Coinsolidation has even been regularly posting the net hashrate so I know he is watching it. No value = no miners = no coin. Yes, I post here as a pragmatist not an idealist but only to balance out the daydreamers. Take the advice or leave it. Either way, I won't post any more here on the subject. How many Bitmark's have been sold under the cost of production? Not really that many, a few thousand at most? I haven't gone through the market with a magnifying glass but I can imagine someone with free electricity doing it or perhaps a need for quick BTC. If someone is willing to sell at whatever the current bid is then clearly they're not concerned with what price they're getting. It doesn't really give us any information other than that. You'll notice now that due to that person or perhaps two people, there are now around 1.5 btc in buys sitting there waiting for this person to sell again. If they're willing to do that then it's great for anyone putting their orders up to catch those sells. 95% of the people who want to accumulate BTC are doing it by mining. Being able to pick up the odd 1k BTM from someone who just clicks sell doesn't provide nearly enough supply to change the fact that mining is the cheapest way to acquire BTM. If tens of thousands of BTM started being sold at well below the current production cost then there would be adequate supply to incentivise people to put their money towards buy orders. But until then nothing of note has really happened imo. |
|
|
|
everybody know that is not true, you can see a transaction on the blockchain immediately, what takes time are confirmations, so latency is not a real problem. Its really just my opinion but I dont see viacoin taking off, neither ethereum, not while most people cant even fully grasp bitcoin...
Well, the transaction is just broadcast but not actually on the blockchain yet, right? Isn't that the whole issue? There are a whole other category of doublespend attacks possible with 0 conf transactions. Which is why almost every Bitcoin service I use has me waiting for one or two confirmations first. Which is horrible when you are waiting over an hour. Even the average time of 10-20 minutes for 1-2 confirmations is pretty long. For some transactions like buying a coffee 0 confs are fine. But since most services deem 1 confirmation acceptable for almost all normal transactions(which I feel is the right balance between security and convenience) having that confirmation come in less than a range of seconds to an hour is far better imo. 24 seconds is quite fast. Not sure how that will work out. But at this point I think it's pretty clear that 1-2 minute confirmations are superior despite the hash that gets wasted on orphans. The point being that ease of use should be a priority over mining efficiency. |
|
|
|
If Peter Todd decides to leave or has a breakdown in relationship with the VIA team, that could spell disaster for the coin.
At this point the only relationship there seems to be is "they're paying me some money".  It is good though that they're attempting to put that ~$350,000 IPO money to some use though. It's pretty amazing that people were willing to throw that much money at them though. Hopefully they put it to good use. |
|
|
|
There certainly are a whole lot of people giving the same advice my financial adviser was giving me in 2010.
Fortunately I did not listen to him.
Stick with your old fiat ways of investing. You may be able to retire when you are 75 with enough to die slowly.
I never imagined BTC would go so high so quickly. It's amazing how fast things can catch on these days. Respect to the people who had the balls to put a good chunk of money in back then and actually hold. That takes some conviction. |
|
|
|
If/When they raise the 1MB limit for blocks it gets potentially more serious. But I still tend to agree with what the XMR devs have argued in this thread before, that a 1TB+ blockchain isn't going to cripple a currency.
I don't think you've paid attention over the years if this is in doubt. Gavin has planned on a mega centralized BTC all along, (no, I am not shilling for Peercoin): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIIkHfU2o8Yits this kind of ridiculous embellishment that destroys potentially helpful, enlightening dialogue. +1, Gavin is just talking of the technical requirements to run a full node on a bitcoin network with orders of magniture more transactions than in 2011. It's just purely facts, it has nothing to do with "planning", even less with political agendas of some sort. This is exactly why Cryptonite was created to take advantage of mini-blockchains. Instead of a 1TB blockchain that takes a giant server to be hosted, mini-blockchains may be run anything from smartphones on up. XCN has the entropy advantage of proof-of-work and the democratic decentralization/small footprint advantages of proof-of-stake. Of course XCN doesn't exist in a vacuum, and will allow Bitcoin to focus on large transactions/wealth preservation by taking the burden of small transactions off its already bloated blockchain. Maybe it would have taken a giant server to host a TB block chain 10+ years ago but these days that can be accomplished quite easily. And it's only going to get better as time goes on. AnonyMint's argument centered around scaling to the petabyte level. I think it's safe say that's not going to happen with Bitcoin. I like the idea of a mini-blockchain and it's nice to see some new technology. But I'm not really convinced that's really enough to do it at this point. |
|
|
|
Will you please end this constant pimping of scrofulous flea-ridden whores? This is the courtesan channel. We have standards. I think he's trying to poke fun at them, no? I don't know much about cloak but I'm highly skeptical. Especially reading a couple pages of that thread. It's the lowest common denominator of cryptocurrency over there. |
|
|
|
As an aside, I'm glad you decided to soften your response calling me completely unreasonable  Sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal insult. I was strictly referring to the possibility of Bitcoin becoming the only form a currency used and was not attempting to imply anything other than that. |
|
|
|
A percentage of people at the top with the means to acquire Bitcoin certainly will.
You can exchange 10,000 pesos for BTC. Or 100 pesos. Or 10 pesos. Or 1 peso. Anyone can do it, you don't have to be rich. Yet another anti-Bitcoin myth / FUD. That's true. Anyone can take a hundred bucks and go buy bitcoin. It's not exclusive to people buying multiple BTC. |
|
|
|
I feel like no one should spend their BTC until we know how high its really gonna go.
Haha And then on the count of three we all unload them at the same time, right? |
|
|
|
SO many decentralized exchanges and platforms under development. This is pretty good news. Everything will be decentralized in the future...including the government. Let's do this.
So you think Stellar is decentralized?  I'm not so sure... Do you consider localbitcoins decentralised? |
|
|
|
Este Nuno, kbm
It's not completely unreasonable. The alt-coins dilute the value of the accepted currency. In other words, when they are first created, they have a comparative trade value which over time is either endorsed or abandoned, just like a foreign paper currency on the monetary exchange. When a foreign currency implodes, it drags down the value of all the other currencies because that currency was traded away for realer goods, which raises their relative value against all currencies. We'll use BTC as the example for illustration:
A new crypto-coin is announced, it is mined and exchanged (ie: dumped) for BTC establishing a relationship of relative value. Now, what happens when that alt-coin dies? This is the downward pressure we see in the price of BTC. The closer we move toward a global economy, the closer we move toward a natural monetary monopoly and if the world population decides that crypto-coin will be the preferred medium of exchange, why is it unreasonable to assume that one surviving coin will be it?
I think it's completely unreasonable to assume the eventual demise of all other altcoins. It doesn't make any sense at all to me.
Many people still question whether Bitcoin itself will end up being the market leader 10, 20 years from now. People are never going to stop trying to innovate in the currency space now that Bitcoin has opened people's imaginations(and wallets).
I agree with yldouright: you are not talking about money, you are talking about assets or standards. There are some things who welcome competition and use it to promote innovation, while there are other things that are strong aggregators with a positive feedback loop: the more people use a coin the more that coin is useful (same thing happens with social network, for instance). This will not completely eraticate every altcoin imaginabile, but is a very strong disincentive. Sure, there will be one dominant form on money in the world in the future. But I don't think we're ever going to see a monopoly happen. There are lots of niche cases that come up and people will always try to fill those needs. Also, people will always try to compete to become the market leader, even if thousands of failed before them. That is as long as the barriers to entry stay as low as they are now. |
|
|
|
If we logically assess the conclusion of a global crypto-currency, it seems to point to a one coin scenario. The vast majority of pundits are on the record stating BTC will be that coin. When we consider the potential problems and destructive effects of value with merged mining, it is not unreasonable to assume the eventual demise of all the other altcoins. In fact, there are very few alt-coins exhibiting healthy charts and the number of dead and nearly dead crypto is growing. Still, you have some investors willing to take that chance, note the link below:
Primecoin [XPM] is being purchased here.
I think it's completely unreasonable to assume the eventual demise of all other altcoins. It doesn't make any sense at all to me. Many people still question whether Bitcoin itself will end up being the market leader 10, 20 years from now. People are never going to stop trying to innovate in the currency space now that Bitcoin has opened people's imaginations(and wallets). |
|
|
|
How long would it take to develop code from scratch? Thing is if we clone a coin we're gonna get the usual "SHITCOIN CLONE SCAM" fud..
I doubt we'll see much of that. These are cutting edge technologies that have never been cloned before. (Qora and Bitshares) Sure there are always trolls, but no one is going to have any legit argument against ORA. It's building on brand new tech with a fair distribution and community activity. If I wasn't currently involved with a another currency project I'd love to get fully involved. For now though I have my stake and I'm observing and supporting.  |
|
|
|
Cryptonite is a Very Big Deal, representing the third great innovation in cryptocash (minichains) after Bitcoin's blockchain and CryptoNote's ring signatures. Vertcoin's private addresses come close to making the list, in a distant fourth place. Proof-of-work may have been a candidate for fifth, but is made obsolete by minichains, so it loses to Primecoin's cool/trippy factor.
Forget those other trash coins. All that matter right now are Bitcoin, Monero, and Cryptonite.
(Litecoin is also valuable as a hot-swappable replacement in case Bitcoin breaks, ditto Namecoin and DNS.)
It's fascinating how Monero and Cryptonite are fundamentally incompatible and splitting Bitcoin into private Monero and public Cryptonite niches, like a speciation event!
Economically it makes perfect sense to remove Bitcoin's blockchain bloat to be more efficient for public transactions, while simultaneously putting other bloat to work by ensuring privacy for Monero.
As I finish this post CN is nearing an ATH. Nice.
Now just wait until all the kids realize they've been conned by their closed source and/or kludgey CLOAK/DARK/BLACK/XC FailCoins. See ya'll on the moon...
Any other opinions on cryptonite? I have to admit that I share icebreakers point of view - that said, xcn is very young, buggy, quite expensive already. compared to other coins it offers something new which indeed has value and potential, but I also think that bitcoin can simply clone miniblockchains once they are proven (non-technical perspective). this is the beauty of xmr, there is quite a big niche which probably will never be filled by bitcoin. XCN is young and expensive, but I haven't seen any bugs yet. It was tested for over a month prior to release. My node is totally stable. Bitcoin cannot "simply" clone minichains any more than other forms of hardfork. Minichains are unproven and untested; the market demands Bitcoin evolve in a very conservative manner. There is too much money at stake for a consensus to hardfork to emerge for any reason, except to fix emergent bugs/vulnerabilities. For all intents and purposes, experimentation and innovation are confined to the altcoins by practical and theoretical reasons. I am very pleased by the emerging symbiosis between BTC, XCN, and XMR. BTC preserves wealth, while XCN makes public transactions very cheap and keeps them off XMR, where blockchain real estate is priced at a premium because it provides absolute privacy. All the arguments for XMR's blockchain not being a huge issue apply much more for BTC. I don't really feel that the size of the BTC blockchain is a major issue, or is ever going to be. If/When they raise the 1MB limit for blocks it gets potentially more serious. But I still tend to agree with what the XMR devs have argued in this thread before, that a 1TB+ blockchain isn't going to cripple a currency. So I don't know if people are really going to care enough to use XCN to keep transactions off the BTC chain. |
|
|
|
Whilst I admire all the effort and dedication going into the coin and the getmarked project (so much that I actually donated to the project), can someone please explain to me why? At the moment, one whole Bitmark is worth less than 6 cents, a Mark is worth 1/1000th of that, less than I spent on electrons to type this post.
Is the time being well spent? I can understand the challenge of creating getmarked from an idealistic point of view but if getting marked has no value, it will not be adopted. Either the value of a Mark has to be increased compared to a Bitmark or the value of a Bitmark has to increase or preferably both to make the project feasible. Has anyone done a cost to benefit comparison? Would the time at the moment be better spent promoting the coin? After all, getmarked was never part of the original plan, it is an afterthought. A good one, I'll admit, but an afterthought.
Current plan: Do something really clever, hope people like it and the coin becomes accepted and valuable.
My plan: Create a stable and workable coin (as per the original idea) and then add something to make it even more appealing.
Someone is attempting to manipulate the price to buy cheap coins by putting 1 or 2 BTM for sale at the buy rate to make it look like there is no spread. And apparently it just worked out for them surprisingly. The price tag doesn't really have much effect on anything really. But in the short term these are a few things that are happening now: - bitmark.co website - IPM - discussions on how to expand our outreach efforts and get more people aware of the project - and more mentioned here in Mark's overview post on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitmark/comments/2cbwgj/project_bitmark_status_overview_1/Any other suggestions of things we should be focusing on in the short term? As far as one Mark not having any appreciable value at the moment, some people are suggesting that it's not a bad thing to introduce Marking as something that mainly counts as reputation now, and gradually becomes currency over time. Lots of discussion in IRC going on about how we want to approach that at the start. Plus it's not like you can't just mark something you like with thousands of Marks if you deem that it's earned them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
