Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 03:11:15 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What happens first:
$65,000 - 59 (86.8%)
$48,000 - 9 (13.2%)
Total Voters: 68

Pages: « 1 ... 17478 17479 17480 17481 17482 17483 17484 17485 17486 17487 17488 17489 17490 17491 17492 17493 17494 17495 17496 17497 17498 17499 17500 17501 17502 17503 17504 17505 17506 17507 17508 17509 17510 17511 17512 17513 17514 17515 17516 17517 17518 17519 17520 17521 17522 17523 17524 17525 17526 17527 [17528] 17529 17530 17531 17532 17533 17534 17535 17536 17537 17538 17539 17540 17541 17542 17543 17544 17545 17546 17547 17548 17549 17550 17551 17552 17553 17554 17555 17556 17557 17558 17559 17560 17561 17562 17563 17564 17565 17566 17567 17568 17569 17570 17571 17572 17573 17574 17575 17576 17577 17578 ... 33203 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26336485 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (170 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:00:54 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

I think it forked BEFORE lock-in. Anyway, until there are actual Segwit tx's after ACTIVATION the blockchain was compatible. They just took a snapshot of Bitcoin blockchain at 1 Aug and started building blocks on it with their custom rules.

Bitcoin didn't fork. THEY created a completely separate fork, which is not the same.

Bitcoin Cash it is in fact compatible with AsicBoost.

Their custom rules are mostly just larger blocks and mechanisms to ensure transactions for each chain are only valid on one chain to avoid replay attacks.  The full details are here:
https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/blob/master/uahf-technical-spec.md
1711638675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711638675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711638675
Reply with quote  #2

1711638675
Report to moderator
"This isn't the kind of software where we can leave so many unresolved bugs that we need a tracker for them." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711638675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711638675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711638675
Reply with quote  #2

1711638675
Report to moderator
1711638675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711638675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711638675
Reply with quote  #2

1711638675
Report to moderator
1711638675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711638675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711638675
Reply with quote  #2

1711638675
Report to moderator
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1454


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:04:54 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCChina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1454


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:06:16 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

I think it forked BEFORE lock-in. Anyway, until there are actual Segwit tx's after ACTIVATION the blockchain was compatible. They just took a snapshot of Bitcoin blockchain at 1 Aug and started building blocks on it with their custom rules.

Bitcoin didn't fork. THEY created a completely separate fork, which is not the same.

Bitcoin Cash it is in fact compatible with AsicBoost.

Their custom rules are mostly just larger blocks and mechanisms to ensure transactions for each chain are only valid on one chain to avoid replay attacks.  The full details are here:
https://github.com/Bitcoin-UAHF/spec/blob/master/uahf-technical-spec.md

And a different difficulty adjustment algo... and god knows what else there in the code..... including bugs.
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1454


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:07:18 AM

Do you guys have problems with kraken?

Yes.
DaRude
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2756
Merit: 1760


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:11:41 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCChina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.
DaRude
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2756
Merit: 1760


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:13:30 AM

Looks like wave 2 is incoming, BCChina is going full retard while BTC staying above $4k. This weekend should be interesting, gotta grab some popcorn
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1454


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:16:53 AM

Looks like wave 2 is incoming, BCChina is going full retard while BTC staying above $4k. This weekend should be interesting, gotta grab some popcorn

I am very pissed by all this action in the middle of the fucking summer. Wonder who was the genious that decided this was a good time to open the pandora box instead of doing it in the boring winter.
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1454


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:26:26 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCChina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:33:07 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCChina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.
It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too.
AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1045



View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:38:10 AM
Last edit: August 19, 2017, 07:25:56 AM by AlexGR

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCChina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN  

All these forks are attacks on bitcoin. That's the only point there is.

Bitcoin's design was intended to be 1 cpu / 1 vote in order to keep the network decentralized. This aspect of the design started to fail, initially with pooled mining and then with ASIC-hardware that was built and kept private for companies to mine. In other words, it's not like a cpu or gpu where anyone can go buy it and start mining. Currently few companies create specialized hardware and by extension these few companies exercise centralized control over bitcoin mining. There is a market failure in terms of ASIC hardware getting sold.

Bitcoin devs, bitcoin users and bitcoin investors (who understand a thing or two) decided to look the other way, as to not be "contentious" about the whole situation, nor piss on the investments that all those miners have done. The rationale was "as long as the miners play nice, we'll pretend that Bitcoin's proof-of-work isn't centralized". No-one tried to find or implement a solution to this centralization issue. I'm not talking about a simple POW change to sha512 that will again bring the same issue in a few months time, but something more fundamental.

And as we were all pretending everything is fine, a few compromised (?) devs like Garzik (you can see what he was writing here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/ and what he currently does with Segwit2x), Gavin, etc, started pissing on the ecosystem along with some of the miners.

The next plan is to take over the chain with a 51%, and redefine what Bitcoin is - putting it under their direct control for any future protocol changes, or even the software we run. They will claim that they are following the vision of Satoshi, when Satoshi was pretty clear on how well planned and unanimous changes must be, not to mention his opinions on competing implementations.

Segwit2x is not BCH. It's not "free coins" in a parallel chain. Things are gonna get ugly if they decide to proceed. And let's be honest here. When Bitcoin is going so good, with valuation of near 4.5k USD, and people want to attack the main chain in a contentious way (=shitstorm), I can't really see them as having good intentions. Perhaps they stand to profit more from the destruction of value by positioning their "options" accordingly. After all if you can control the "good news" and "bad news" of a market, then you can benefit financially. And this is what they've been doing with all the forking scenarios, fud, or real since the price was at 200$. They create the news and the sentiment. They have become a market force that indirectly dictates prices. "Oh they are forking it, sell"... "Oh they cancelled the fork, onwards to 10k!!!", etc etc. This is bullshit on so many levels it's not even funny. No wonder Segwit2x was decided in a closed-meeting with financial companies.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:38:40 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCChina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.
It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too.

People don't understand supply and demand curves. They think that reducing supply (i.e. raising price) is the only way to increase profitability.  Increasing demand by lowering price is how big companies do it.
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1454


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 06:41:47 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

It doesn't include it at all. He forked-off prior to Segwit activation so there are no Segwit transactions in BCH.

Why on earth BCChina support Segwit or god forbid LN? Think people are missing the whole point of this fork. Miners don't make money on LN transaction = miners don't support LN 

Miners don't make money either if fees are very low... Oh, now that I think about it.... Are those calculations about profitability of BCH vs BTC include tx's fees per block? Don't think so....

Think long term global scale. This is just an attempt at a power grab 8MB blocks will be full too. Miners only make money on on-chain txs.

It's way easier to spam blocks when they are already filled by 80-90% legit tx's. They will have a hard time doing the same with 8MB blocks, plus the main argument of BCH is that they will keep upgrading block size way before they are filled. So, basically, less total fees earned no matter what.

It has always been a falacy that it is the miners interest to have bigger blocks. It isn't. But everybody is lieing anyways.
It is, however, in the interest of bitcoin as a whole. Bigger blocks means more people can use it means higher price, and of course wider ability to actually pay with bitcoins in shops and such. And who knows, maybe the extra volume will make it profitable for miners too.

I am not against a small block size increase.... but for the usage as payment network with mass adoption, linear block size increases won't do it, you will need LN for that.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2017, 06:58:02 AM

Looks like wave 2 is incoming, BCChina is going full retard while BTC staying above $4k. This weekend should be interesting, gotta grab some popcorn
It's clearly an orchestrated pump if you take a look when it started and how it is moving. You've got to be out of your right mind to actually want BCH. I don't like the price of Bitcoin at the moment.

Segwit2x is not BCH. It's not "free coins" in a parallel chain. Things are gonna get ugly if they decide to proceed.
Correct. It is going to become a big mess since Garzik, who is a very mallicious individual nowadays refused to add replay protection (you've read that right, btc1 has no replay protection).

After all if you can control the "good news" and "bad news" of a market, then you can benefit financially.
Indeed.
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2017, 07:01:12 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".


That "just" is pretty important.

Bitcoin is going to ~4mb per block (indirect max capacity since the data are stored in a 1+3 manner) once Segwit activates, plus LN on top of that. It's not like 8 vs 1. It's 8 vs 4(+LN).

Ethereum was made after BTC. It has fast blocks (issued in seconds). Their devs know about scaling issues, etc etc, yet their network is literally stuck when an ICO happens. Exchanges are shutting down ETH transactions (!) due to load. What's their proposed solution? Bigger blocks? No, they have accumulated too much bloat and it didn't even solve anything, so LN-type extensions it is ("Plasma") to help with computational and storage scaling.

Quote
...
Incredibly high amount of transactions can be committed on this Plasma chain with
minimal data hitting the root blockchain. Any participant can transfer funds to anyone,
including transfers to participants not in the existing set of participants. These transfers
can pay into and withdraw (with some time delay and proofs) funds in the root blockchain’s
native coin(s)/token(s).
...

http://plasma.io/plasma.pdf



No risk avers business will follow this concept, where there is proof now that easy peasy on chain scaling works and there is no logic to friggle some crap around bitcoin to give room for higher risk solutions.

Bitcoin (and all that already high energy usage) on chain should be used up to its limits first and than off chain solutions have time to prove safety over same period of time bitcoin did.

If your elevator has an expanding door you will also first ask for that key, before you send your furniture up the stairs , sure opening this back door is a HF, but worth doing it.

You just force low fee spenders into crap.
AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1045



View Profile
August 19, 2017, 07:11:37 AM

No risk avers business will follow this concept, where there is proof now that easy peasy on chain scaling works and there is no logic to friggle some crap around bitcoin to give room for higher risk solutions.

Bitcoin (and all that already high energy usage) on chain should be used up to its limits first and than off chain solutions have time to prove safety over same period of time bitcoin did.

The only unexplored limit I can think of right now, is some stuff I've read about compressed blocks, which is essentially a system of different representation of the data in terms of network transmission and data storage, which might reduce block size by around 30%. It's like a custom compression scheme tailored for bitcoin, instead of relying in a compression library that might have vulnerabilities.

It's clearly an orchestrated pump if you take a look when it started and how it is moving. You've got to be out of your right mind to actually want BCH. I don't like the price of Bitcoin at the moment.

I would call it "orchestrated accumulation of coins". The accumulator is even leaving the market to dip so he can get the order books to his liking before proceeding to buy. I don't know who he is / who they are, but they do have pretty deep pockets Tongue
bitserve
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1454


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 07:11:53 AM

FULL on-chain "scaling" is absolutely ridiculous. What's next? enable micropayments also on-chain? TX's of less than 1cent being replicated over thousands of full nodes and stored for centuries?

Ridiculous.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
August 19, 2017, 07:41:54 AM

FULL on-chain "scaling" is absolutely ridiculous. What's next? enable micropayments also on-chain? TX's of less than 1cent being replicated over thousands of full nodes and stored for centuries?

Ridiculous.
One of the primary points of bitcoin is that anyone can send any amount they want to anyone they want with no busybody middlemen deciding what constitutes a proper and legal transfer.

Someone wants to pay a fee to send dust, that's his business and working as intended.

That's what people seem to keep forgetting. It's not free.
HanvanBitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 19, 2017, 07:43:12 AM

Kraken down  Undecided
Denker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1014


View Profile
August 19, 2017, 07:46:14 AM

I just want to use Bitcoin as a currency. I honestly do not care too much about the small differences between the two chains. They both have SegWit which will allow the Lightning Network which will allow for fast, cheap microtransactions.

Not really. BCH doesn't have Segwit, doesn't fix tx malleability and obviously LN can't play with tx malleability without other workarounds (?). It's just "bigger blocks".

Didn't BCH fork off after the Segwit lock in? Or did they fork with a version that did not include it?

Would make sense as Wu would not want to expose his AsicBoost usage once SegWit gets activated. Much easier to just create a whole separate chain where he can continue to use it to mine blocks at an advantage.

No BCH doesn't have SegWit. And that was done on purpose, because of Asciboost as you already have mentioned.
And yes Jihan can mine blocks at an advantage with that. And he can mine it alone, for himself. Although Bcash difficulty has reduced much and it may be more profitable to mine it, at least for some whort while, I really doubt that many miners will switch over. Therefore Bcash will remain extremely centralized. In terms of mining, protocol development, mostly in everything.
AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1045



View Profile
August 19, 2017, 07:47:19 AM

FULL on-chain "scaling" is absolutely ridiculous. What's next? enable micropayments also on-chain? TX's of less than 1cent being replicated over thousands of full nodes and stored for centuries?

Ridiculous.
One of the primary points of bitcoin is that anyone can send any amount they want to anyone they want with no busybody middlemen deciding what constitutes a proper and legal transfer.

Someone wants to pay a fee to send dust, that's his business and working as intended.

That's what people seem to keep forgetting. It's not free.

Well Satoshi didn't say "we'll include your dust as long as you pay for it"... more like fuck dust txs...

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

You'll also note he talks about an AGGREGATING MECHANISM... Wink
Pages: « 1 ... 17478 17479 17480 17481 17482 17483 17484 17485 17486 17487 17488 17489 17490 17491 17492 17493 17494 17495 17496 17497 17498 17499 17500 17501 17502 17503 17504 17505 17506 17507 17508 17509 17510 17511 17512 17513 17514 17515 17516 17517 17518 17519 17520 17521 17522 17523 17524 17525 17526 17527 [17528] 17529 17530 17531 17532 17533 17534 17535 17536 17537 17538 17539 17540 17541 17542 17543 17544 17545 17546 17547 17548 17549 17550 17551 17552 17553 17554 17555 17556 17557 17558 17559 17560 17561 17562 17563 17564 17565 17566 17567 17568 17569 17570 17571 17572 17573 17574 17575 17576 17577 17578 ... 33203 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!