You're confusing volume with support. I can generate 100BTC of volume by buying & selling my .1 BTC a thousand times. OTOH, I can't create a 100 BTC buy wall with my .1 BTC, not unless your shit exchange offers 1000:1 leverage. Does it? I've been trading stocks all my life. In fact I was a broker at one time.  Seriously tho, crypto seems to attract you failed penny-stock pumpers. Guess it's the demographic of these fine fora -- ripe 4da pickin'  |
|
|
|
You're confusing volume with support. I can generate 100BTC of volume by buying & selling my .1 BTC a thousand times. OTOH, I can't create a 100 BTC buy wall with my .1 BTC, not unless your shit exchange offers 1000:1 leverage. Does it? |
|
|
|
What does "transparency" mean, when I don't know IRL identities behind BTC addys?
transparency is trusted network. i can't sell my car in the actual (FIAT) system ... even the bankster network don't verify the FIAT account before i receive the payment !!! (Eurozone, Wire can be "delete" after 3-5 days ... on your account if sum is corrupt) in Bitcoin network, this can't append after 2 hours. if i receive a payment, it's real and usable money ... trusted and verified 6 times (!). i don't want the identity of the bidder ... i want money !  that's why bitcoin is better over all solution ... because it don't NEED KYC ... Speed/irreversibility of transactions is transparency? |
|
|
|
...
I prefer an open network.
Bankster network is not open AT ALL !
What does "transparency" mean, when I don't know IRL identities behind BTC addys? Coins are tumbled all the time, coins are stolen all the time, exchanges claim hacks (GOX, Inputs, Cryptsy, etc.), Bitcoin businesses vanish without a trace, where are all these coins? And I don't mean taint analysis of thousands of addys, that's useless. |
|
|
|
Comparing the Bitcoin energy use to VISA's is comparing apples to oranges. The energy used by Bitcoin miners is used to secure Bitcoin itself. Networks like VISA, by contrast are secured not only by the energy used in its data centers, but by the banks themselves.
No, Visa transactions are secured by VISA. This includes the energy used by the bank CEOs to take airline flights, the energy used in all bank branches, etc. I.e. there is a lot more energy securing the VISA network than just that used in their network and data centers.
That's just silly. By your reasoning, it follows that we should add airline flights by folks like Danny Brewster to Bitcoin energy costs. And brick & mortar offices of Bitpay & the flights taken by its employees. And Bitcoin exchanges and their owners etc., etc. The emphasis on efficiency makes this argument more complicated. The simple fact is that the Bitcoin network is designed to pay miners a total payment that today is 3600 BTC + transaction fees per day. Every student of economics know that when the payment is fixed, the market will automatically adjust to the most efficient use. This means that the energy and other resources used will be automatically equal to something around 3700 BTC per day. (The transaction fees are part of this, and will become a bigger part after each halving.)
Either we're severely overpaying to secure Bitcoin now (~10% of total BTC in existence per year), or Bitcoin is not going to be sufficiently secure after the halving. Take your pick  |
|
|
|
I am making this topic self-moderated to avoid nonsense posts but I won't delete any reasonable arguments on either side of this question (and yes it is my decision what is reasonable in this topic - if you don't like that then please create your own topic - it isn't that hard after all).
So - although we are seeing some governments accepting Bitcoin as having a role we are seeing others basically trying to ban it outright (Russia being the current example of this).
I wonder if part of the problem is the perception (however likely or not) that Satoshi is aligned with (or was the creation of) a government and therefore the Satoshi *stash* effectively belongs to that government (which is estimated at around 5-10% of all bitcoins).
To me it makes some sense that a country might fear that if Bitcoin were to be adopted as a "new gold" then if it turns out that one country already has 5-10% of the new gold standard then that would be a "hard pill to swallow".
I'm not advocating for "deleting Satoshi's stash" but simply raising the question that if we are wanting Bitcoin to be Gold 2.0 then perhaps this issue cannot just be disregarded.
(and no - this is not "Satoshi envy" from myself and also I think it is perhaps good to discuss something other than the block size)
Most Bitcoin enthusiasts are anti-government & anti-state. Many militantly so. Governments can't control or issue BTC. Why in the world would governments be interested/supportive of Bitcoin? Seems pretty counterintuitive. |
|
|
|
...
Bitcoin does not need moar people/transactions to gain value. It needs moar money.
Bitcoin doesn't need moar money, bitcoiners do. Bitcoiners need a safe haven from TPTB and banksters in which they can store their money. Poor kids hoping to catch a train are hopeless. Bitcoiners don't need a place to store their money. They ain't got any. Because blew it all on magic BTCeans & BTCeanies. prudently invested it all in BTC. |
|
|
|
...
Bitcoin does not need moar people/transactions to gain value. It needs moar money.
Bitcoin doesn't need moar money, bitcoiners do. |
|
|
|
...
The winds of change seem to be blowing into some of the better alt-coins as we speak. ...
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure where you live but sending 100 bucks from one bank account to another costs zero fee in my country. Holding the bank account is free too. So how should i explain why bitcoin needs higher fees now?
It's different when it comes to sending over country borders but rarely i get to know a person that needs to do this regularly.
The other advantage is the speed of course. But how long until we have fees like paypal have?
Instantly? Fine. $10,000+ Still instant? How often do you need to transfer $10,000 instantly? What I mean to say is, how bad is your bath salts habit? |
|
|
|
...
The difference? Up to an HOUR for the first 2 and 1-2 MINUTES for the preferred.
... Roughly 1 Bitcoin block is mined every 10 minutes  |
|
|
|
I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).
It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?  |
|
|
|
... I accept zero confirmation at the retail store that I am involved with running, this is not a problem for me.
If it's not a problem for you, then it's clearly not a problem. Because anecdotal evidence of something not being compramised is what security is all about I buy most of my food using zero confirmation as well through BitPay.
Well yeah, "... apparently [payment processors] rather foolishly signed contracts w/ merchants guaranteeing zeroconf payments." Thanks for not exploiting the exploitable. BitPay, security pros that they are, already got owned pretty hard. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Is it a waste of time mentioning Bitcoin to friends and family?
Not if they're trapped & you have a knife.
|
|
|
|
These drops are normal and happen quite often lately. Don't pay too much attention to them.
+1. Price falling pretty much all the time now. Just ignore it and hodl. |
|
|
|
|
^Not sure what you're saying here. You don't believe there are scenarios in which interests of >51% of hashpower are at odds with those of the hodlers?
|
|
|
|
Only a madman would think the price would go this high in a matter of a month.
Even by drinking alcohol you wouldn't think something this stupid would happen.
Little kid after little kid keeps repeating this, but the fact is it has already happened before. I'm not saying it will, but it seems incomprehensibly stupid to keep saying it's impossible when history proves your statement is nonsense. Oh, and it didn't take a month, it only took a few days...  Yup. That's crypto for you  There's only *one* amazing pump, but suckers will hope for another one. Case in point: Your Megacoin  |
|
|
|
...
Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated The part below I find more tricky: I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc
Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism. No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means. I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ... ^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders. That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years. Not as clear-cut as that. That alignment is *inferred*, and to reach it requires one to make multiple logical leaps. Many possible stumbling blocks, like tragedy of the commons, for instance. Agreed, it is not a direct relationship, and there are stumbling blocks. I still think that if this premise is not true then Bitcoin has already failed. Obviously I do not think that is the case, but it certainly is food for thought. Not necessarily failed, there are clear attempts to address the [possible] conflict of interests (e.g. non-mining nodes, wallet software), but not sure if effective. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
