First of all, who are you, and what have you done with the real KwukDuck ?
This is the first time Ive seen you actually make *any effort to respond intelligently instead of just ignoring responses to your noise and posting more of it.
Congratulations, keep this up, and people might eventually believe you arent just a cracked record player.
- It doesn't scale to any level that could be considered significant in the world of finances. We can barely get the 3tps, which isn't close to the theoretical 7tps. If you compare that to even small payment providers it isn't even anything significant.
"Considered Significant in the world of finance" is a bit of a vague term though. *What world of finance ? NYSE ? Visa ? M-Pesa (Do you know of it ? - It runs on SMS messages, with hard limits caused by the mobile network tower capacity, but that doesnt stop it from being a very useful and successful payment system *right now)
Bitcoins *initial iterations were never intended to have the starting capacity to outright replace any major current part of the "Finance Worlds" present operations. The deliberate limits placed on the protocol were *chosen to make it workable without overloading the bandwidth and CPU power available to small home users at the time. Nobody would run the software if their computer and network connection immediately slowed to a crawl.
I hope you have looked at
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability ? Your blanket statements like "Bitcoin doesnt scale" make me wonder. People used PC's with hard limits (640k Ram, 2 Gb Hard drives etc) in them for many years without being concerned that "PC's dont Scale !". When solutions were required, they were chosen. Choosing a solution too far prior to the point that it is required makes it more likely that the best solution will not yet have been determined.
The present disagreement in the dev community over the "right" solution says to me that one that a majority can agree upon has not been found yet, *and that there is no present need *for one to be found *right now. The interested parties obviously feel that there is still time to keep thinking about it before settling on one, despite the cries of hyperbolic naysayers that all potential future issues be addressed immediately before Bitcoin can "Succeed". In short, cross bridges when you come to them, not before.
I can see that there *is significant effort being put towards solving this future issue, and am confident that it *will be solved, despite the pessimistic cries of those who seem to have no memory of other systems limits being solved just fine when required. Demanding a final answer *now is unnecessary and alarmist.
- Only 8% of the money supply is physical. We have moved on from your ancient view of money a long time ago.
I am quite aware that a majority of money exists purely as numbers in a computer. Even that 8% of physical cash uses a ridiculous amount of energy, effort, and environmental impact to process and handle. I doubt that the wattage used by the Bitcoin network would even compare to the cost of the fossil fuel required to move that 8% of physical cash around, not to mention the vault constructions, guards, printing, destruction, accounting proceedures, records and so on it additionally requires,
It would be nice to be able to compare the power used by the existing networks to handle their computer transactions in a "watts vs transactions processed" manner, but unfortunately, unlike Bitcoins "Network hash rate" number which is available to all as part of the difficulty algorithm, There is no easy way to measure the power consumption of the present finance system networks. This allows critics to point in horror to the estimated megawatts used by Bitcoins crypto network based on the public hash rate, while actually having no idea of the power used by the legacy bank networks for comparison.
Knowing just a few data points from a friend of mine who works in a large bank processing data center, such as the multiple shipping container-sized TurboCharged V16 Diesel standby generators that are required to keep power on to (just that one site of many in this country alone) facility in the event of grid failure, and nightly human-assisted batch processing of transaction queues using virtual machines running ancient COBOL code that nobody is game to even try replacing, I would guess that their network efficiency (watts vs transactions) would be "very low". But this is just guesswork, I doubt they even know themselves.
- Inequality is far worse within the bitcoin community than in regular fiat systems.
A difficult statement to prove or disprove. By "Fiat Systems", do you include the government creating billions out of mid air in quantitative easing measures ? Banks generating interest on money that they never had in the first place ? Arbitrage networks ? International Loans where countries merely pay the interest for decades knowing that depreciation will make it far easier to pay off the capital with future money that is worth less ? All of these contribute to the rapid devaluation of the small amounts of "cash" held by the little guys, while the bigger players make billions from their manipulations of this "unreal" money. Do you include all of these in your "Inequality" ?
what is bad is that bitcoin operates more like a ponzi in this sense. A small hand full of users was given big handouts right from the start when other people weren't even aware of it.
The "Ponzi" argument was dead and buried years ago and using it just makes you look foolish. No doubt because it is one of the few "scary" financial terms that the general public *thinks it understands is "Bad" (like "Pyramid" and "Bubble" !).
A ponzi is a zero-sum game that generates little or no value itself and pays early-investors purely from the ongoing enticement of new "investors" to provide an inflow of cash. The Bitcoin network already provides actual inherent value as a secure global payment processing system that is in use by many daily, and has many other additional value-generation functions that people find useful.
Thus it completely fails to meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme and resembles it in no way other than the superficial "Early adopters make more profit than latecomers" that fools the ignorant. You might as well call *all Stockmarket's Ponzi schemes, since they too reward early adopters more than later ones.
*No early users were given "handouts". They *invested their time, interest, energy, electricity, processing power and bandwidth into a "startup" concept long before the majority took it seriously. It was not hidden, and there were no pre-mines. Anyone was free to join the network and generate coins with their "CPU miners" at any time. You might as well complain that "everyone wasnt aware" in the 70s of how big Microsoft/Apple would become later on, and so present shareholders of those companies should be divested of their current stock in the name of fairness.
Early adopters got Rich by doing nothing.
Bull, they took a risk with their prior-earnings and available-to-risk resources on a project with a high initial likelyhood of failure. That willingness to take an early chance is what powers *all innovation and capital gains. If someone paid $1000/coin (or a stockmarket-company-share) today, held on to them throughout the subsequent waves, and sells them for $2000 each at whatever future time, did they "Do Nothing ? Of course not, they deprived themselves of the ability to use that invested money for other wealth-generation in the meantime, and having made those resources and confidence available to whatever project/company for the duration, are well deserving of their capital gain. Whether they purchased their early coins with cents, dollars, or cpu cycles - They "earned them at the price prevailing at that time". "Doing nothing" is a stupid argument used by those who think you need to labour to "earn" wealth.
- Credit cards have had their best time. Banks are deploying newer more intuitive and faster payment methods every day. There are many systems far worse than bitcoin in this sense, there are also systems far better.
Im sure there are. Can you name some that will benefit anyone other than the banks ? Not that they *should. If the banks are paying to develop these new systems, they deserve the profits from doing so. Bitcoin is merely a *competing system that is being openly developed, and will profit anyone who participates intelligently. It is a democratic payment system that is available for all to assist with its operation. I dont know of any others (excluding copycat altcoins based on bitcoins innovative tech).
Want faster *confirmations - just add in a 3rd party who will accept the (miniscule) risk in covering the tiny fraud percentage for as long as it takes the blockchain to confirm things. Or you could try to withdraw/transfer $10k from a bank and see how long it *really takes them to "confirm" that you can have your money.
- No.. I don't want a 3rd party. One of the core ideas behind bit coin was getting rid of the middle man, your solution: 'add a middle man'...?
No, I dont *want an additional middleman either. But if *you want some feature *now that the present network does not currently offer, you *can add to it if you want it that badly - Crying that the current network presently doesnt offer infinite scalability, instant confirmations, or some other lack doesnt mean it cant be done. It may be included in the future, but in the meantime the applicable statement is "There's an app for that" (or could be one if enough want it)
Transactions are traceable to *addresses, of course, they have to be. Addresses are not traceable to *people. Anonymity is quite easy if you want to take some precautions. Once again, a misrepresentation of the facts to suit your agenda.
- No, correlating addresses has become quite easy with all the blockchain tools available to us now. You only need to connect one of them to a real-world identity.
Just like financial investigators can "follow the money" through shell corporations, offshore accounts and other money laundering systems. Any system that allows the movement of large amounts of anonymous money will be attacked for providing a laundering service. Nonetheless, they still exist. If you use legitimate established exchanges that comply with "know your customer" requirements, then of course you are trackable - you provided the ID to someone. If you use local-bitcoins (or equivalent) to buy/sell your coins from someone who does not comply with KYC requirements, and do not leave coin-to-ID tracks, then the network will not inherently reveal your identity. Its not that hard. Yes it takes some effort, but it can be done.
So the statement "Bitcoin is not anonymous" is completely erroneous. The Bitcoin network *IS anonymous. Using non-anonymous exchange or other services compromises that anonymity in the same way an Alias can be blown by a single careless statement. A network cannot protect you from this, it is up to you.
"What agenda are you talking about? All i would like to see is bitcoin get back on it's tracks of being an innovative revolutionary system that solves problems we have in our current monetary system and that is available to everyone."
Riiight. And you *arent a known bitcoin shorter attempting to profit from downturns in its exchange rate, with a history of making demonstrably false statements as if they are fact and confidently proclaiming that you have analysis teams and secret contacts with insider knowledge of upcoming market movements. pardon me.. but *Bullshit.
- Yet, blind groupthink is what's going on here on a big scale, everybody ignoring or lying away problems in order to sell their bags to the next fool. How about we address and resolve these issues before we start to promote it to the average Joe again...
What have *you done to "resolve" these issues other than talk crap at every opportunity, shouting from the rooftops whenever the exchange rate goes down, and strangely disappearing during any periods of increase ? And where do you see any *credible people "promoting it to the Average Joe" ? Only the ones who are in it for their own personal gain and treating it purely as a speculative vehicle..
Yes, there *are lots of such people, but your implied inclusion of them (and yourself) as "we" suggests that *all participants in this venture are driven by the same nefarious motivation simply to profit at the expense of later adopters. Do you consider *all stock market traders in the same vein ?
Many bitcoin proponents actually see the proven repeated flaws in the current collapse-like-clockwork financial systems and are working to try and develop something new - it may too have present and future flaws that will need to be overcome, but it is starting on completely different foundations than the current known-to-fail fiat systems, and so presents the *opportunity to grow into something that might prove to benefit the world beyond the short sighted petty "Please profit me now" concerns of the day-traders.
Not that I expect you to believe that. Your poor attempts at manipulative word tactics are as transparent as glass to anyone with a modicum of comprehension.
A nice try at a reasoned response, but I see the "Lying to sell your ponzi bags to the greater fool" message is re-emerging at the end here.
Is the strain of having to think for a while and express oneself rationally instead of spamming emo arguments getting a bit too much for you to sustain ?
