Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[brg444]

Someone's working on this www.goabra.com

They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry).

For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries).

If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone.

They aren't your typical remittance company.

They have money, they understand the importance of physical locations.

The plan is to replicate the hugely successful M-Pesa model worldwide but in a decentralized fashion.

Some quotes from the CEO:

Barhydt: "The Abra footprint needs to be more in the order of 20 to 30 million locations. Our goal is to build massive liquidity whether you're receiving a remittance or getting off a cruise ship, you can find a teller."

Barhydt says it is creating "master" network to deploy around the world. "This is a multi-year excercise. It took them years to have driver liquidity."

They've recently raised an additional 14M$ and seemingly have a great understanding of their target market:

Arbor sees huge potential for the Abra business model globally, but especially in China and Southeast Asia, which are traditionally large cash economies but leapfrogging into mobile payments and bypassing traditional banking and card infrastructure at an accelerating rate. Making cash mobile will unlock a lot of opportunities in these markets and across the region.

They are IMHO one of the most promising Bitcoin companies out there. One which serves a true purpose and offers immediate value to their users.

[brg444]

of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?

In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.

How has that worked for the last 2 years and a half? Again you ignore reality and make arguments based on fantasies.

Governments couldn't care less about file sharing, it has no impact on their ability to govern and only affects certain industries.

If you really believe that more Bitcoin adoption and therefore more challenge to the monetary sovereignty will not bring about more attacks and incentive to destroy Bitcoin then you are quite simply utterly clueless.

It is not a fantasy to think that when more people learn about Bitcoin that some of those people will start to run full nodes, I even know people where this has been the case recently. Furthermore the node count has actually increased recently, which is a positive effect that has been brought about because we now have multiple competing clients.

I'm ignoring you btw. Any conversation you are involved in is the same old boring story all over again. I can't be bothered with you anymore

[CIYAM]

The plan is to replicate the hugely successful M-Pesa model worldwide but in a decentralized fashion.
...
They are IMHO one of the most promising Bitcoin companies out there. One which serves a true purpose and offers immediate value to their users.

I do hope they gain traction and agree that this is the kind of thing we really want to see to show off the Bitcoin potential.

[adamstgBit]

I, want bigger blooooocks!

[mallard]

scalability and taxability resolved: http://taler.net/

Taxable Anonymous Libre Electronic Reserves

go for it n00bs!

Unsure if sarcasm, if it is I'm sorry.
You should read this.

[erik777]

-snip-
Note that if I had used by credit card I could just "tap to pay" but if I use BTC they'll have to find their person that knows how to do the tx (and many stories on this forum show that places that accept BTC only have one person that even knows how to do that) and muck around with QR codes (which will take at least 5x as long as tap and go does).

And in order to get the BTC you would have most likely had to set up an account at an exchange (requiring all sorts of ID checks) or gone through an even more complicated procedure (risking being targeted as some sort of tax evader by using localbitcoins).
Why on earth would anyone do that?

Your post makes zero logical sense to me. What are you talking about? Are you telling me that you did not have to set up an back account to receive your credit card? Did it fall from the sky loaded with money? The procedure is seemingly similar aside from some fees when buying. Basically you had to set up a bank account and receive your CC. Then you proceed to load it with money and use it.
With Bitcoin, you set up an account at a exchange. Then you proceed to load it with money and buy Bitcoin. Then you transfer back your Bitcoin and use it. There's just 1 additional step in this. It's not even complicated. The problem is that people are closed minded and do not like change.

It seems that a lot of people here are just living in some sort of "fantasy land" in which BTC is able to be acquired for zero fees or hassles.

I do agree with this though.

Why would that be preferable to cash or credit cards?  As much as I'd like to see bitcoin be accepted everywhere, it is just not likely to compete on ease of use. So, why go through that hassle?  

Setting up an account isn't easy and has a waiting period here.  Also, at the only pub I found that accepts bitcoins, they don't accept them for alcohol, only food.  

Now, if I were paid in Bitcoins, then, yes, I'd want to spend them without having to convert them to fiat and pay conversion fees.  This isn't rocket science.  We want to spend the money we receive, and payroll is how most people receive money.

To abstract his point higher, I agree with another who said it needs to be a store of value first.  Because, then you have a savings, and may want to at some point spend that savings.  However, short of regular Bitcoin income, this would likely foster spending in higher ticket items than coffee, like maybe buying a new computer or phone.

[erik777]

Someone's working on this www.goabra.com

They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry).

For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries).

If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone.

Is Abra using bitcoin?  I see they are using a blockchain, but don't see Bitcoin on their site. 

[brg444]

Someone's working on this www.goabra.com

They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry).

For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries).

If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone.

Is Abra using bitcoin?  I see they are using a blockchain, but don't see Bitcoin on their site.  

They are. The fact that they barely mention it is intentional as every operation and money transfers are denominated in local currency.

They use smart contracts w/ derivatives to avoid value fluctuations.

[coalitionfor8mb]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

Emphasis mine.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.
2) There is one little detail here, removal of the limit on block size makes the orphaning a non-issue as it opens the door for targeting higher bandwidth layers (those fiber optics under the ocean are waiting ) where profit-driven miners would be incentivized to move sooner than later. They have little incentives to do that at the moment as the costs won't justify the effect with the current 1MB limit in place.


There are two costs that play against each other with Bitcoin.

1) First is the cost to transact on a single unified ledger that comes from the limit on block size (which incurs tx fees).
2) Second is cost to run a full validator of the protocol rules and transactions from home (ever growing blockchain).

The more transactions are allowed in the block the cheaper they become, but the costs of validating get higher as a result (and vice versa).


As of right now Bitcoin gives us two "keys" for our monetary sovereignty.

1) First is the "private key" from our coins that we can generate in a permissionless way and then use to receive and send money.
2) Second is the "key" to validate the fact that money we hold and use operate as intended by having permissionless access to blockchain.

The fees we pay in the network is the price to hold the second key, don't lose it!

[brg444]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

Emphasis mine.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.
2) There is one little detail here, removal of the limit on block size makes the orphaning a non-issue as it opens the door for targeting higher bandwidth layers (those fiber optics under the ocean are waiting ) where profit-driven miners would be incentivized to move sooner than later. They have little incentives to do that at the moment as the costs won't justify the effect with the current 1MB limit in place.


There are two costs that play against each other with Bitcoin.

1) First is the cost to transact on a single unified ledger that comes from the limit on block size (which incurs tx fees).
2) Second is cost to run a full validator of the protocol rules and transactions from home (ever growing blockchain).

The more transactions are allowed in the block the cheaper they become, but the costs of validating get higher as a result (and vice versa).


As of right now Bitcoin gives us two "keys" for our monetary sovereignty.

1) First is the "private key" from our coins that we can generate in a permissionless way and then use to receive and send money.
2) Second is the "key" to validate the fact that money we hold and use operate as intended by having permissionless access to blockchain.

The fees we pay in the network is the price to hold the second key, don't lose it!

Well put.

[coalitionfor8mb]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

Emphasis mine.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.
2) There is one little detail here, removal of the limit on block size makes the orphaning a non-issue as it opens the door for targeting higher bandwidth layers (those fiber optics under the ocean are waiting ) where profit-driven miners would be incentivized to move sooner than later. They have little incentives to do that at the moment as the costs won't justify the effect with the current 1MB limit in place.


There are two costs that play against each other with Bitcoin.

1) First is the cost to transact on a single unified ledger that comes from the limit on block size (which incurs tx fees).
2) Second is cost to run a full validator of the protocol rules and transactions from home (ever growing blockchain).

The more transactions are allowed in the block the cheaper they become, but the costs of validating get higher as a result (and vice versa).


As of right now Bitcoin gives us two "keys" for our monetary sovereignty.

1) First is the "private key" from our coins that we can generate in a permissionless way and then use to receive and send money.
2) Second is the "key" to validate the fact that money we hold and use operate as intended by having permissionless access to blockchain.

The fees we pay in the network is the price to hold the second key, don't lose it!

Well put.

[Preclus]

...Are you telling me that you did not have to set up an back account to receive your credit card? Did it fall from the sky loaded with money? The procedure is seemingly similar aside from some fees when buying. Basically you had to set up a bank account and receive your CC. Then you proceed to load it with money and use it.
With Bitcoin, you set up an account at a exchange. Then you proceed to load it with money and buy Bitcoin. Then you transfer back your Bitcoin and...

You don't load a credit card up with money. When you spend money on a credit card, you are borrowing money when you pay.

In trading terms, when you buy an asset using a credit card, you are shorting (selling via borrowing) the currency the credit card is in and going long the asset you purchased. If your credit card is in US dollars, for example, and you purchase a $100,000 Mercedes car with it, you are now short $100,000 US dollars and long a $100,000 Mercedes.

If the value of the Mercedes doubles before your payment is due and you can sell it by then for $200,000 (doubtful) and make your $100,000 monthly payment to pay back the credit card loan, then you will have made $100,000 profit and it was all borrowed money. This is not a very realistic example as most people don't use credit cards to buy assets they believe will appreciate in value. They usually use them to pay bills or buy non-performing assets. However, it is true that when you use one to purchase an asset, you are going long that asset and shorting the dollar until your payment is made to close out the loan.

Credit cards are different from debit cards. A debit card is not a loan, the purchase amount is deducted from the bank account associated with the card.

Because credit cards are loans, they generally have higher fees than debit cards. One big reason is because not everyone who borrows money pays it back. Some people buy a bunch of stuff on credit cards and run away and/or file bankruptcy.

And that's one of the reasons credit cards have higher interest rates than other payment methods. You are not spending your money, you are spending their money.

There are a variety of other differences between cards, such as the amount of buyer protection you have if someone rips you off. More details are here:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/debit-cards1.htm

[Peter R]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

[brg444]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.

The problem with your logic here is that the users responsible for the majority of Bitcoin's monetary base are not deterred by or concerned with transactions fees. Therefore what you are essentially suggesting is that those users who are not comfortable with paying for the security and the services of the network would essentially bootstrap their own altcoin.

Seeing as they are necessarily less wealthy individuals who'd have a hard time supporting an economy with their own pockets I'm betting they will think twice before doing this.

[iCEBREAKER]

an unabashed appeal to authority.

I appealed to expertise, not "authority."

It's very sad you lack the basic intelligence required to understand the day-and-night difference between expert opinion and argumentum ad baculum.

No wonder you are still pushing XT's dead, utterly #REKT fail-agenda.

[Peter R]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.

Personally, I see the protocol fork as the path of least resistance.

Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period.  I don't believe this will happen.

But time will tell.

[brg444]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.

Personally, I see the protocol fork as the path of least resistance.

Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period.  I believe this will not happen in the future.

But time will tell.

 

Yeah sure, bootstrapping a new economy surely is the path of least resistance, not cashing out to fiat to make whatever purchase you're trying to make....

[Peter R]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.

Personally, I see the protocol fork as the path of least resistance.

Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period.  I believe this will not happen in the future.

But time will tell.

 

Yeah sure, bootstrapping a new economy surely is the path of least resistance, not cashing out to fiat to make whatever purchase you're trying to make....

By protocol fork, I just mean increasing the block size limit to satisfy demand.  I don't understand how that implies "bootstrapping a new economy."  Can you explain?

[BTCBinary]

Bitcoin XT was a real test to the community. I'm happy decentralization came out as a winner.

[DooMAD]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.

Personally, I see the protocol fork as the path of least resistance.

Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period.  I believe this will not happen in the future.

But time will tell.

 

Yeah sure, bootstrapping a new economy surely is the path of least resistance, not cashing out to fiat to make whatever purchase you're trying to make....

By protocol fork, I just mean increasing the block size limit to satisfy demand.  I don't understand how that implies "bootstrapping a new economy."  Can you explain?

I'm not sure which it is.  Either they think the economic majority will side with them in the event of a fork, or they're cocky enough to believe that they are the economic majority all by themselves.