if they can...why can't Bitcoin?

[jonald_fyookball]

For those that believe that "Bitcoin should stick to high value transactions and leave the coffees to another crypto",
well then let me ask you this:

1. If that "Coffee Crypto" is working fine for coffee, why wouldn't it work for bigger transactions?
(And please do not say "it won't be secure enough" without providing a rigorous argument showing some numbers why.)

2. If does work for bigger transactions (and small ones) , why can't Bitcoin?

[Holliday]

Why do coffee purchases need to be censorship-proof again?

[Bonnyi]

They just don't care such problem.
they want LN to solve  this, but people don't really need LN, if they have other currency to pay the coffee with low fee.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why do coffee purchases need to be censorship-proof again?

translation:  There is no mythical coffee crypto that's truly decentralized like Bitcoin.

did I get that right?

[Holliday]

Can a Ferrari carry a cinder block? Yes.
Would a sane person use a Ferrari to transport the cinder blocks required to build the foundation of their new home to the construction site? No.

Can a chainsaw cut a blade of grass? Yes.
Would a sane person mow their lawn with a chainsaw? No.

Can a barrel hold water? Yes.
Would a sane person use a barrel to bring water along on their bike ride? No.

Just because something is technically capable of doing something doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.

Using a block chain based cryptocurrency for mundane and micro transactions doesn't make sense because of the fact that every full node must keep a copy of every transaction since the very first coin base reward.

Resources matter. We should be encouraging wise use of resources. There may come a day when those resources (the internet, specifically) come under attack by people who want to control us instead of promoting and allowing freedom. If you think this idea is paranoid, take a look at some of the capital controls that first world, western countries around the globe are implementing against their citizens, in the name of "security". Imagining "information controls" is not that far fetched, in the slightest, and we can even see examples of them today!

Wouldn't it be nice to know that Bitcoin is a lean, robust protocol, which if required can easily function on fewer resources (less bandwidth), should the need arise?

With that in mind, wouldn't it be best to build layers on top of Bitcoin which will give those people who want cheap, fast micro transaction the ability to do exactly that, while allowing those layers to be peeled away in a worst case scenario? Isn't that a worthwhile compromise to make?

[Holliday]

Why do coffee purchases need to be censorship-proof again?

translation:  There is no mythical coffee crypto that's truly decentralized like Bitcoin.

did I get that right?

More like: Block chain based crypto, due to the resources required to maintain it, isn't well suited for everyone to use for everything, all the time, aka buying a coffee.

[jonald_fyookball]

Can a Ferrari carry a cinder block? Yes.
Would a sane person use a Ferrari to transport the cinder blocks required to build the foundation of their new home to the construction site? No.

Can a chainsaw cut a blade of grass? Yes.
Would a sane person mow their lawn with a chainsaw? No.

Can a barrel hold water? Yes.
Would a sane person use a barrel to bring water along on their bike ride? No.

Just because something is technically capable of doing something doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.

Using a block chain based cryptocurrency for mundane and micro transactions doesn't make sense because of the fact that every full node must keep a copy of every transaction since the very first coin base reward.

Resources matter. We should be encouraging wise use of resources. There may come a day when those resources (the internet, specifically) come under attack by people who want to control us instead of promoting and allowing freedom. If you think this idea is paranoid, take a look at some of the capital controls that first world, western countries around the globe are implementing against their citizens, in the name of "security". Imagining "information controls" is not that far fetched, in the slightest, and we can even see examples of them today!

Wouldn't it be nice to know that Bitcoin is a lean, robust protocol, which if required can easily function on fewer resources (less bandwidth), should the need arise?

With that in mind, wouldn't it be best to build layers on top of Bitcoin which will give those people who want cheap, fast micro transaction the ability to do exactly that, while allowing those layers to be peeled away in a worst case scenario? Isn't that a worthwhile compromise to make?

 Sounds like you are saying Bitcoin theoretically could support all sizes of transactions but that you think its a bad idea.

[Sadlife]

Or you could convert that bitcoin of yours into your fiat currency then you could buy many coffees you like.
That saves the blockchain from the stress from processing a small amount of transaction that has a possibility to get unconfirmed or takes forever to get confirmed.

[Rabber]

I don't understand the programming/technicals, so I can't really answer your question but it did make me wonder about this.


If there were two separate cryptocurrencies, one mainly for large transactions and another for smaller transactions people might feel better about having their currency divided into two separate systems in case some unseen event causes major problems with one of them.

Even such a failure is highly unlikely, the will still feel better about such a safeguard and if everyone had half their value in each coin when a failure happens the other coin should double in value. They will see less risk.

[Theb]

I don't know but  I think Bitcoin does not have any problem when it comes to those payments. Also as far as I know Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that is accepted in some local businesses other than that there is none. Bitcoin as of today is the Father of Cryptocurrency and it is still growing.

[Tatshot]

I don't know but  I think Bitcoin does not have any problem when it comes to those payments. Also as far as I know Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that is accepted in some local businesses other than that there is none. Bitcoin as of today is the Father of Cryptocurrency and it is still growing.

More than $1 fee is not a proplem for a cup of coffee?

[pooya87]

I don't understand the programming/technicals, so I can't really answer your question but it did make me wonder about this.


If there were two separate cryptocurrencies, one mainly for large transactions and another for smaller transactions people might feel better about having their currency divided into two separate systems in case some unseen event causes major problems with one of them.

Even such a failure is highly unlikely, the will still feel better about such a safeguard and if everyone had half their value in each coin when a failure happens the other coin should double in value. They will see less risk.

you have cash for that. if you fear failure and if you want to use a currency for your day to day needs then use (continue to use) cash/fiat for that matter.

i don't really get why people are always going for extreme examples! who said we want to buy coffee everyday with bitcoin? that is stupid
but at the same time it is stupid to prevent scaling and say bitcoin is only for high value transactions and fees should go up because resources are limited.

[Idrisu]

I do not know about any crypto currencies developed for the purpose of purchasing coffee but do know that many local are using bitcoin for both big and small transactions. Mean while if bitcoin is for the big transactions then there will be no competition in crypto currencies market. As some will only focus on bitcoin for their large purchase and the altcoins for their small purchase.

[Killerpotleaf]

Why do coffee purchases need to be censorship-proof again?

Why would a typical consumer need to be censorship-proof again?

its not about the coffee

its about empowering the poeple

[Kakmakr]

Why can we not have our bread buttered on both sides? If we want Bitcoin to be a Digital P2P Cash payment network,
then you should be able to buy anything from coffee to expensive cars. Bitcoin should be the Swiss Army knife of Crypto currencies, not the single purpose steak knife.

C'mon guys and gals, let's open this up for everyone and not just for the rich people. ^grrrrrrrr^

[dinofelis]

For those that believe that "Bitcoin should stick to high value transactions and leave the coffees to another crypto",
well then let me ask you this:

1. If that "Coffee Crypto" is working fine for coffee, why wouldn't it work for bigger transactions?
(And please do not say "it won't be secure enough" without providing a rigorous argument showing some numbers why.)

It might very well be, but because the ecological niche will be taken already by bitcoin.  Unless bitcoin leaves that niche.  But bitcoin, being first mover, and being highest market cap and being most integrated already with 'the big boys', may very well keep that place.  Or not.

It is a bit: "why is gold put in vaults and used for ages as reserve currency, and why not, say, iridium ?".  Because gold took that place first.

That said, there's nothing wrong with bitcoin leaving the room for something else if that something else works better.  The thing that bitcoin has going for it, is a brand name.  But deep down, it is just a game with big numbers.  Replacing a game with big numbers by another game with big numbers that turns out to be more practical, I don't see what's the problem.  Replacing a Ford-T with a Toyota, what's the problem, if it drives you better to where you want to go ?

2. If does work for bigger transactions (and small ones) , why can't Bitcoin?

Because it wasn't correctly designed for that, and immutability makes that it cannot change fundamentally.

[BurtW]

I don't know but  I think Bitcoin does not have any problem when it comes to those payments.

I think it might
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1829494.msg18217070#msg18217070

[dinofelis]

They just don't care such problem.
they want LN to solve  this, but people don't really need LN, if they have other currency to pay the coffee with low fee.

Amen.

LN is banking all over.  But the niche is taken by fiat banks.  LN just brings in extra hassle.  Crypto, needing to be censorship resistant, trustless, decentralized etc.... has a huge burden in comparison with a centralized fiat bank ; that burden needs to be offset by an advantage in order to be competitive.  When there were 20 transactions a day, it seemed naively that this burden didn't really exist.   Click, and 10 minutes later, $10, or $100 000, was securely on the other side of the world.  The growth was financing the inflation and the PoW, everything was still small-scale, so it seemed simple, "if only everybody used it".  
No, the needs for censorship resistance, trustlessness, security, decentralization etc... are big resource hogs, and in order for it to be competitive with fiat banking, it has to bring in something that you cannot do or cannot do as well with fiat banking.

So crypto will always be a niche applications for those things you cannot do with fiat: everything which is illegal, lawless, unregulated, or where a good legal system doesn't exist, in those cases where the legal system is too corrupt, or when international situations make the connection between several legal systems too difficult.

And coffee buying is none of them.

Bitcoin is costing about $400 million a year in PoW only.  Add to that all the network and computing infrastructure, and you see that bitcoin, as a payment system allowing for 3 transactions a second, is not cheap.  It costs about $4 a transaction.  This is now compensated still by inflation which is not seen because of growth (greater fool growth), but the real cost is there.  You need to have a niche where a transaction is worth $4 as a competitive edge in order to do so.

[Amph]

another coins with very low TX volume and with very low fee might work well for cofee, since with a low amount of Transaction volume fee would be very cheap, and you can afford the coffe at 10k satoshi per tx like it was before

but if this same crypto was to be used on a more serious volume like bitcoin, it would kill its lower fee and thus not allowing to purchase a coffe without spending too much

[megynacuna]

For those that believe that "Bitcoin should stick to high value transactions and leave the coffees to another crypto",
well then let me ask you this:

1. If that "Coffee Crypto" is working fine for coffee, why wouldn't it work for bigger transactions?
(And please do not say "it won't be secure enough" without providing a rigorous argument showing some numbers why.)

2. If does work for bigger transactions (and small ones) , why can't Bitcoin?

I just don't understand why they always find ways to be little Bitcoin. It's becoming too many, if you feel the coffee coin can help you then go ahead and use it why would you come and talk another coin down?