Has Bitcoin Failed to Deliver ?

[Hung_Daddy]

There's never been an actual promise from the start tho

Newer alt coins can say those thing  but BTC is so old that nothing is ever going to change

[BlokF4No27]

I think in some cases it will definitely happen, money transfer system with a bank or ATM also many cases of failure to occur. That's the thing that has to be resolved by the developers to fix the system.

[rajasumi3]

well i would say u are too soon to say this as .as bitcoin is in the first phase of development and it has too many bugs and programmers are trying hard to make it right .i would say u to wait for another 5 years and this post has it impact then.

[QuestionAuthority]

It's really way too early to say. If bitcoin survives the next eight years it's probably going to survive forever.  Once the mining reward drops down to an inconsequential amount, the price per coin goes through the roof and transaction fees skyrocket then Bitcoin has "made it".

[OmegaStarScream]

well i would say u are too soon to say this as .as bitcoin is in the first phase of development and it has too many bugs and programmers are trying hard to make it right .i would say u to wait for another 5 years and this post has it impact then.

I understand that Bitcoin isn't fully developed and there is more versions that will come out in the next years but saying that It has "too many bugs" make no sense. I mean the clients has but the Network Itself isn't really buggy , there might be some problems that need to be solved but those shouldn't be considered as a bug.

[Indrawan77]

No i don't think bitcoin is a failure, bitcoin had become the first decentralized currency and still survive until now, so bitcoin has done it's purpose

Bitcoin just lack of user if there are more user using bitcoin, bitcoin can become one of the most valuable currency in the world

[GenTarkin]

What a retarded-ass-fucking-article ... why do people write such junk?!?
"Failed to deliver?"

Last I checked, Satoshi meant it to be a "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
For nearly 10 years now it has functioned as such and has done a quite damn good job of it.

People need to go back to the basics of shit before writing such utter junk articles.

[Invulner]

What a retarded-ass-fucking-article ... why do people write such junk?!?
"Failed to deliver?"

Last I checked, Satoshi meant it to be a "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
For nearly 10 years now it has functioned as such and has done a quite damn good job of it.

People need to go back to the basics of shit before writing such utter junk articles.

Agreed. Bitcoin hasn't promised anything fancy at the level of smart contracts and stuff like that, which altcoins offer. However, it doesn't come with the volatility and the scammy nature of altcoins either. People create altcoins to make a profit for themselves, not mainly to benefit society, while satoshi created it and took no fame from it at all, as he is still anonymous to this date.

[Schuyler]

It is a currency that's trying to find its own place under the sun. So far, we have seen some progress here and there and more people are warming up on the idea of using it. Give it another five years and let us see how far it has gone in terms of mass adoption and overall usability.

[deisik]

It's really way too early to say. If bitcoin survives the next eight years it's probably going to survive forever.  Once the mining reward drops down to an inconsequential amount, the price per coin goes through the roof and transaction fees skyrocket then Bitcoin has "made it".

Some people are heavily disagreeing with that

On the other hand, the Bitcoin price can't go through the roof without widespread adoption of Bitcoin which is impossible without increasing the block size. And if we are really talking about exponential price growth (and, consequently, wild unrestrained adoption), the block size should evidently increase multifold. But greater blocks would allow to accommodate more transactions, so if the miners don't want to shoot themselves in the foot with the price shooting through the roof, they might want to lower the fees substantially since they will get more revenue through the fees if the number of transactions per block increases as well

[QuestionAuthority]

It's really way too early to say. If bitcoin survives the next eight years it's probably going to survive forever.  Once the mining reward drops down to an inconsequential amount, the price per coin goes through the roof and transaction fees skyrocket then Bitcoin has "made it".

Some people are heavily disagreeing with that

On the other hand, the Bitcoin price can't go through the roof without widespread adoption of Bitcoin which is impossible without increasing the block size. And if we are really talking about exponential price growth (and, consequently, wild unrestrained adoption), the block size should evidently increase multifold. But greater blocks would allow to accommodate more transactions, so if the miners don't want to shoot themselves in the foot with the price shooting through the roof, they might want to lower the fees substantially since they will get more revenue through the fees if the number of transactions per block increases as well

I'll help you out with that other thread. Tell him the increase in transaction fees was "designed into" the system by the great and beloved Satoshi. Then quote the white paper to him. Tell him the concept was to "reward' (pay) miners to "secure" (because that's what mining really is) the system. Satoshi almighty realized that miners won't work for free and they certainly won't pay for (as Satoshi put it in the white paper) CPU time and electricity cost to mine at a loss. Transaction fees are "designed" into the system to eventually be a full replacement for block reward. That means fees need to be as high after each reward drop as the sum total of the loss in block reward + fees were before the reward drop. If he doesn't understand that then stop talking to him because he's an idiot and will never understand how Bitcoin works.

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

Oh, one other point to help your argument. As a miner long ago, I mined a ton of Bitcoin. When you mine the equipment you mine with gets really, really fucking HOT. I mean like fry a fucking egg hot. Computers and HOT go together like gasoline and a match. Mining equipment needs to be constantly upgraded and replaced as you mine (I bought dozens of HD 5970 GPUs as replacements when I was mining). As these farms continue to mine their equipment replacement cost will continue to go up at a rate equal with the annual cost of living increase. The transaction fee increases will also need to include the cost of mining equipment replacement. Any mining company (farm) that doesn't understand this will go out of business or have their profit dwindle down to nothing.

[Yutikas_11920]

What a retarded-ass-fucking-article ... why do people write such junk?!?
"Failed to deliver?"

Last I checked, Satoshi meant it to be a "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
For nearly 10 years now it has functioned as such and has done a quite damn good job of it.

People need to go back to the basics of shit before writing such utter junk articles.

Agreed. Bitcoin hasn't promised anything fancy at the level of smart contracts and stuff like that, which altcoins offer. However, it doesn't come with the volatility and the scammy nature of altcoins either. People create altcoins to make a profit for themselves, not mainly to benefit society, while satoshi created it and took no fame from it at all, as he is still anonymous to this date.

Yeah it does something good. Because all those who already have something good in the bitcoin it will always trust bitcoin for profit, because if we don't get a good thing then it will not be possible to be able to use it always gains in altcoin. because of the advantages in the bitcoin, so it was all something of a good thing.Do a good thing for us is something quite difficult and we must also do something better so that we can not get a bad thing

[btcxyzzz]

Yes Bitcoin failed to deliver, but read in signature what coin will not fail.

[deisik]

It's really way too early to say. If bitcoin survives the next eight years it's probably going to survive forever.  Once the mining reward drops down to an inconsequential amount, the price per coin goes through the roof and transaction fees skyrocket then Bitcoin has "made it".

Some people are heavily disagreeing with that

On the other hand, the Bitcoin price can't go through the roof without widespread adoption of Bitcoin which is impossible without increasing the block size. And if we are really talking about exponential price growth (and, consequently, wild unrestrained adoption), the block size should evidently increase multifold. But greater blocks would allow to accommodate more transactions, so if the miners don't want to shoot themselves in the foot with the price shooting through the roof, they might want to lower the fees substantially since they will get more revenue through the fees if the number of transactions per block increases as well

I'll help you out with that other thread. Tell him the increase in transaction fees was "designed into" the system by the great and beloved Satoshi. Then quote the white paper to him. Tell him the concept was to "reward' (pay) miners to "secure" (because that's what mining really is) the system. Satoshi almighty realized that miners won't work for free and they certainly won't pay for (as Satoshi put it in the white paper) CPU time and electricity cost to mine at a loss. Transaction fees are "designed" into the system to eventually be a full replacement for block reward. That means fees need to be as high after each reward drop as the sum total of the loss in block reward + fees were before the reward drop. If he doesn't understand that then stop talking to him because he's an idiot and will never understand how Bitcoin works

That guy is obviously looking for a fight not an argument, so he may want to find someone else

Having said that, we should not forget that miners get fees per block basis. That basically means that if one block can contain more transactions, the miners will receive more fees (if the average fee per transaction remains the same and blocks are full). Since the block fill-up ratio roughly depends on the adoption of Bitcoin by general public (at the same block size), increasing the block size (following the increase in adoption) should make the fee revenue grow, and that could, at least, hypothetically lead to lower fees per transaction. In other words, miners would be earning through increasing sheer volume of transactions, not through rising fees per transaction

[QuestionAuthority]

It's really way too early to say. If bitcoin survives the next eight years it's probably going to survive forever.  Once the mining reward drops down to an inconsequential amount, the price per coin goes through the roof and transaction fees skyrocket then Bitcoin has "made it".

Some people are heavily disagreeing with that

On the other hand, the Bitcoin price can't go through the roof without widespread adoption of Bitcoin which is impossible without increasing the block size. And if we are really talking about exponential price growth (and, consequently, wild unrestrained adoption), the block size should evidently increase multifold. But greater blocks would allow to accommodate more transactions, so if the miners don't want to shoot themselves in the foot with the price shooting through the roof, they might want to lower the fees substantially since they will get more revenue through the fees if the number of transactions per block increases as well

I'll help you out with that other thread. Tell him the increase in transaction fees was "designed into" the system by the great and beloved Satoshi. Then quote the white paper to him. Tell him the concept was to "reward' (pay) miners to "secure" (because that's what mining really is) the system. Satoshi almighty realized that miners won't work for free and they certainly won't pay for (as Satoshi put it in the white paper) CPU time and electricity cost to mine at a loss. Transaction fees are "designed" into the system to eventually be a full replacement for block reward. That means fees need to be as high after each reward drop as the sum total of the loss in block reward + fees were before the reward drop. If he doesn't understand that then stop talking to him because he's an idiot and will never understand how Bitcoin works

That guy is obviously looking for a fight not an argument, so he may want to find someone else

Having said that, we should not forget that miners get fees per block basis. That basically means that if one block can contain more transactions, the miners will receive more fees (if the average fee per transaction remains the same and blocks are full). Since the block fill-up ratio roughly depends on the adoption of Bitcoin by general public (at the same block size), increasing the block size (following the increase in adoption) should make the fee revenue grow, and that could, at least, hypothetically lead to lower fees per transaction. In other words, miners would be earning through increasing sheer volume of transactions, not through rising fees per transaction

Yes, that's true. That is a component of the mix. I always believed increasing transaction volume would offset rising equipment costs. That way increases in transaction fees would only need to offset the loss in block reward. That ended up not being true when I stopped mining completely at the first reward drop. I also had no intention of buying massively expensive specialized hardware to mine because the transaction volume was not increasing to pay for my investment. At this point we will just have to wait and see what the future holds. If Bitcoin becomes an everyday spendable currency for a large group of people instead of its current role as a speculation vehicle everything might work out just fine. Only time will tell if Satoshi was right.

[CyberKuro]

What a retarded-ass-fucking-article ... why do people write such junk?!?
"Failed to deliver?"

Last I checked, Satoshi meant it to be a "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
For nearly 10 years now it has functioned as such and has done a quite damn good job of it.

People need to go back to the basics of shit before writing such utter junk articles.

I stand over 'too early to say that' side. Well, it almost 8 years of bitcoin since the first time been invented.

In fact, many of the people that Bitcoin was supposed to put to pasture have now adopted the Bitcoin tech and are still around. So the libertarian vision of a decentralized currency run on cryptographic democracy has not really materialized. Instead, we are still living in a world of governments, banks and big financial services businesses.

Yes, we are still living in that economics world, so what? It doesn't matter.

Right. ... I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

I will wait until 12 years later as Mr.Satoshi said to say bitcoin has failed to deliver. For now it's seems so Great for me.