Bitcon (aka Bitcoin) can't scale!

[AnonyMint]

Bitcon's transaction fees can't scale. The only option going forward is if corporations will subsidize the mining for free, which means monopolization and 666 system.

I have written much about this, you can go digging if you are really interested:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/3441/shelby-moore-iii

Otherwise just listen to all the fanboys who reply and tell you that I am wrong.

You are investing in either a design that can't scale, or that will scale to enslave mankind.

Remember I told you.

Now let the moronic, inane fanboy replies begin!

[BigJohn]

Do you have any data to show that the collective amount from transaction fees will not be enough to fund sufficient mining?

[AnonyMint]

Do you have any irrefutable proof that it will?

Would you go fishing without enough fuel to get home, given the alternative for mankind is so diabolical?


Proof that debasement is good, is so obvious common sense. Can you imagine a world of slavery where the rich got richer just for collecting interest on bonds and doing nothing with their mind? That is what you delusional goldbugs get with NO DEBASEMENT. Brilliant! There is a big difference between preventing excessive inflation (good!), preventing insider control over deflation/inflation rate (good!) and NO DEBASEMENT (bad!!!!!). I hope you all can realize that! You all have been hoodwinked by Ponzi Satoshi.

[yucca]

I sense you try and provoke emotions. That aside, in the page you linked to, I presume written by your good self, I read:

I don't see how variable, market-based transaction fees can scale. I go to a merchant's website to buy, how do I select a mining peer to pay transaction fee to? Do I attach some bounty that any peer can earn if that peer wins the Proof-of-Work block? But what if my bounty isn't high enough to attract a peer given high transaction volume competing for priorities? Or not enough to cover any peer's mining overhead. How do I know how much to bid to be sure my transaction completely timely?

Currently we are all riding the "raw" protocol.

Should bitcoin go mainstream then layers will be placed on top and/or existing unused script aspects of the protocol will come into play.

So instant verification will be carried out by banks for "trusted" users, users will pay them for the service and the banks pay lloyds of london for insurance against losses.

The mainstream wrapper around bitcoin will be nothing like what we see of bitcoin today. bitcoin will solely be used as the foundation, tangible backing for a new money.

Bitcoin will not prevent fractional reserve banking occuring on top of it. But it WILL prevent fiat money happening with it.

[jubalix]

Bitcon's transaction fees can't scale. The only option going forward is if corporations will subsidize the mining for free, which means monopolization and 666 system.

I have written much about this, you can go digging if you are really interested:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/users/3441/shelby-moore-iii

Otherwise just listen to all the fanboys who reply and tell you that I am wrong.

You are investing in either a design that can't scale, or that will scale to enslave mankind.

Remember I told you.

Now let the moronic, inane fanboy replies begin!

yes but thats ok when BTC is 1 mill each

LTC/TRC or other will be used for day to day, backed by BTC, that is always an option

[simonk83]

You're wrong.

[AnonyMint]

yes but thats ok when BTC is 1 mill each

LTC/TRC or other will be used for day to day, backed by BTC, that is always an option

If something else is used for transactions which can't be monopolized, then I'm good.

The alternative must include debasement or a flat transaction fee to keep mining profitable. Here is why:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8687/developments-to-prevent-51-hack/8784#8784

[AnonyMint]

yucca, logic fail.

So in your solution, I get either out-of-control fiat or no debasement. Neither is an improvement. We need controlled and limited debasement:

Proof that debasement is good, is so obvious common sense. Can you imagine a world of slavery where the rich got richer just for collecting interest on bonds and doing nothing with their mind? That is what you delusional goldbugs get with NO DEBASEMENT. Brilliant! There is a big difference between preventing excessive inflation (good!), preventing insider control over deflation/inflation rate (good!) and NO DEBASEMENT (bad!!!!!). I hope you all can realize that! You all have been hoodwinked by Ponzi Satoshi.

[yucca]

yucca, logic fail.

So in your solution, I get either out-of-control fiat or no debasement. Neither is an improvement. We need controlled and limited debasement:

Proof that debasement is good, is so obvious common sense. Can you imagine a world of slavery where the rich got richer just for collecting interest on bonds and doing nothing with their mind? That is what you delusional goldbugs get with NO DEBASEMENT. Brilliant! There is a big difference between preventing excessive inflation (good!), preventing insider control over deflation/inflation rate (good!) and NO DEBASEMENT (bad!!!!!). I hope you all can realize that! You all have been hoodwinked by Ponzi Satoshi.

Human chosen inflation/deflation is a tool sold by keynsian dinosaurs, get with the program, things are changing.

bitcoin is simply a finite resource that can be used as a trade medium (currency) nothing more, nothing less.

[yucca]

In a scheme where secure asset/inormation form the foundation to back a currency:

To entrust some people with the issuance or withdrawal of certificates is destined to fail. Perhaps you are not aware yet, but people who strive to be controllers tend not to be altruists.

Why do you think it is necessary to debase/inflate a currency?

Do you think Nixons cut from gold in 1971 was a good idea? I suppose it was a very clever move in order to move onto petro dollars, now that could be construed as a "ponzi scheme" in which Nixons Saudi friends got in early.

Also you said "logic fail", but you are not proposing any logical debate, you only put forth your subjective ideas to discuss.

[yucca]

Remember Nixon said cutting from the gold anchor would "stabilise" the $:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzr1QU6K1o

Hows that working out? You think good? maybe not mmmkay.

Makes me lulz when Nixon says "The american dollar must never again be a hostage in the hands of international speculators"... doublespeak FUD, are you related to him?

[throwaway123]

In the future we might put more transactions into one block.

[Gator-hex]

Litecoin solved this by going smaller.

Gold doesn't scale either.

Germany is expecting a 7 year transaction time to get it's gold back from the Fed 

[BigJohn]

Do you have any irrefutable proof that it will?

Would you go fishing without enough fuel to get home, given the alternative for mankind is so diabolical?


Proof that debasement is good, is so obvious common sense. Can you imagine a world of slavery where the rich got richer just for collecting interest on bonds and doing nothing with their mind? That is what you delusional goldbugs get with NO DEBASEMENT. Brilliant! There is a big difference between preventing excessive inflation (good!), preventing insider control over deflation/inflation rate (good!) and NO DEBASEMENT (bad!!!!!). I hope you all can realize that! You all have been hoodwinked by Ponzi Satoshi.

You didn't answer my question.

Right now the theory is that even without new Bitcoins being given in every block, mining could still be profitable from transaction fees alone. Just to throw some random number out there, if every transaction had a fee of 0.0005BTC, that would be 4cents fee per transaction, and would need 50,000 transactions in a block to yield 25BTC, which is exactly what miners are getting right now. That definitely seems managable.

The last 24hours saw about 60,000 transactions. So we need to see roughly 24 times that in order for the numbers to make sense. I'm not saying that they obviously will, but it doesn't seem impossible either. We only have a few hundred thousand Bitcoin users. If we had something like 7-10 million Bitcoin users, these numbers could easily work.

So again I ask you, do you have any numbers or any evidence to show that transaction fees alone cannot support the Bitcoin network in the future?

[AnonyMint]

So again I ask you, do you have any numbers or any evidence to show that transaction fees alone cannot support the Bitcoin network in the future?

Sure it can if you accept the mining won't be available as the only way to get true anonymity, and that the large corporations will take over mining (because they can offer transaction fees of zero or even less than zero because they make it back with a cartel and higher prices).

I guess you guys never heard of Visa and MasterCard.