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

[dinofelis]

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?

Because bitcoin's propaganda said that it was a currency with which Alice would buy coffee.

[1715088211]

1715088211

[1715088211]

1715088211

[1715088211]

1715088211

[1715088211]

1715088211

[1715088211]

1715088211

[AicecreaME]

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?

Very well said, in my opinion, using bitcoin in all the things that we are going to buy is not really worth it, because if we are going to think of it, it is like we are wasting our money that we could have in bitcoin, I mean spending bitcoins like buying coffee could cause us to lose our profits in bitcoin, so as long as we could use fiat on buying things or spending it in our everyday living, we don't need to use bitcoin.

We have to save it and use it wisely if we want to have profits in the long run by saving it and earning bitcoin, not recklessly using on spending it on everything that we could think of.

[spartacusrex]

JHONNY!..

You really got a bee in your bonnet about this.. 

How about this :

I'm old skool. In my world, the BEST PROGRAMMER, wins.

Mantra / propaganda / ideology aside, as a purely TECHNICAL decision..

Are you honestly saying you'd be happy with BU taking over the project from CORE ?

( ..because, from a TECHNICAL point of view.. I'm sorry to break this to you.. it's suicide.)

[bikbik2]

JHONNY!..

You really got a bee in your bonnet about this.. 

How about this :

I'm old skool. In my world, the BEST PROGRAMMER, wins.

Mantra / propaganda / ideology aside, as a purely TECHNICAL decision..

Are you honestly saying you'd be happy with BU taking over the project from CORE ?

( ..because, from a TECHNICAL point of view.. I'm sorry to break this to you.. it's suicide.)

I would not pay attention to this kind of statement. As a rule, only those who benefit from this write or those who do not understand anything do so, so I completely agree with you, he did not even think about suicide. BU has long been needed to write off the path.

[QuestionAuthority]

Is bitcoin a competing currency or a speculative commodity? I can use dollars to buy a coffee, a car or an island. If bitcoin is supposed to compete with dollars, it should be capable of buying anything any other currency can buy. If bitcoin is mainly for speculation but can also be used for limited purchases then it should be reserved for large value transactions to reduce stress on the network.

You can't say bitcoin is money then argue about what it can buy. If it's money then there's nothing it can't buy.

[dinofelis]

You can't say bitcoin is money then argue about what it can buy. If it's money then there's nothing it can't buy.

Bitcoin, at this moment, costs about $8 a transaction.  Seen from the other side, bitcoin lets you EARN $8 per transaction a user needs to make.

https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

It even used to be more expensive before the block halving.  You can say: yes, but most of it comes from the block reward.  True, but this inflation tax is ALSO paid by the users: those HOLDING bitcoin.  The fees are paid by those transacting.  But bitcoin is a system where a transaction costs $8.   We didn't see this because of the influx of greater fool speculators, who paid most of this.  But that's the reality: bitcoin SPENDS HEAT at the rate of $8 per transaction.  Someone is paying that.  There's no free lunch.

So what do you think you can buy with bitcoin ?  Only expensive stuff.

Of course, you can say, but if we can increase the number of transactions, then we can also lower the cost per transaction.   But the people in charge of this change are those on the receiving end of this cost.  Why would they ?

[Holliday]

Is bitcoin a competing currency or a speculative commodity? I can use dollars to buy a coffee, a car or an island. If bitcoin is supposed to compete with dollars, it should be capable of buying anything any other currency can buy. If bitcoin is mainly for speculation but can also be used for limited purchases then it should be reserved for large value transactions to reduce stress on the network.

You can't say bitcoin is money then argue about what it can buy. If it's money then there's nothing it can't buy.

I think it's just really hard to pin Bitcoin down because it's so different than anything we've seen before. It doesn't seem to want to play nice with the old rules or fit into any specific boxes.

I've spent a lot of time wondering if it's even possible to "own" a bitcoin. I mean, you can know a secret combination of letters and numbers which allows you to append the block chain in a very specific manner. Is that ownership?

Yet, when compared to all the other assets on the planet, Bitcoin is probably the one that gives he-who-controls-the-private-keys the strongest property rights possible. I mean, you can literally store a Bitcoin in your head. Until technology allows someone to extract your thoughts, that is far more secure than any physical property (which can easily be removed by... well anyone with a bigger gun than you). Please no XKCD.

To anyone attempting to define Bitcoin, I say, "Good luck!"

I think Bitcoin is some combination of free speech and information which has value. It's truth without an oracle.

[QuestionAuthority]

You can't say bitcoin is money then argue about what it can buy. If it's money then there's nothing it can't buy.

Bitcoin, at this moment, costs about $8 a transaction.  Seen from the other side, bitcoin lets you EARN $8 per transaction a user needs to make.

https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

It even used to be more expensive before the block halving.  You can say: yes, but most of it comes from the block reward.  True, but this inflation tax is ALSO paid by the users: those HOLDING bitcoin.  The fees are paid by those transacting.  But bitcoin is a system where a transaction costs $8.   We didn't see this because of the influx of greater fool speculators, who paid most of this.  But that's the reality: bitcoin SPENDS HEAT at the rate of $8 per transaction.  Someone is paying that.  There's no free lunch.

So what do you think you can buy with bitcoin ?  Only expensive stuff.

Of course, you can say, but if we can increase the number of transactions, then we can also lower the cost per transaction.   But the people in charge of this change are those on the receiving end of this cost.  Why would they ?

Then you believe it's just a commodity.

[Xester]

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?

Yes we can buy coffee using bitcoin but there is simply a block and disadvantage in using bitcoin in buying a cup of coffee this days. The real reason is that the miner fee is much higher, equals of half of the price of that cup of coffee. So let us put this way if the price of a cup of coffee is 2 dollars you will pay 3 to 4 dollars all in all, 2 dollars will go to the coffee shop and 1 to 2 dollars to the miners.

[dinofelis]

Then you believe it's just a commodity.

Well, something with a built-in scarcity of transactions is obviously not going to be a great currency.  But it DOES have currency properties, but only for large amounts.  So I see it as a reserve currency, held in vaults, and only transacted in big amounts to settle things between big owners of big vaults.  I don't know how you call that apart from "reserve currency".

Also, the fact that it has lowering inflation, to converge ultimately to a diminishing number of coins (coins get lost) and be truly deflationary, makes it perfect for vault applications, and unsuited for normal payments.  Bitcoin was designed not to be too liquid.

[AicecreaME]

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.

What he means is that why are you going to use bitcoin on buying coffee if you could use fiat, and since it is not that easy to earn bitcoin unlike fiat, that is why it would be wise if we are going to use fiat on buying stuffs like coffee instead of bitcoin, because using bitcoin in everything like buying coffee is like it is okay with us to lose profit, if you know what I mean.

[Jet Cash]

Bitcoin is one item in the wide range of currency and payment options. A British Britannia coin has a face value of £100, the gold content is worth £990, but it will cost you £1044 to buy one from the Royal Mint. Would you use one to buy a coffee in the supermarket - probably not, even though there is no transfer fee. Use the currency and method that suits the conditions and application required.

[xSkylarx]

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?

I am not sure if we are going to use bitcoin to buy coffee, it will help to someone? I don't think so. Maybe we are just trying to shout out to all the people out there that I'm a bitcoin user so die in jealousy, which is wrong. Spending our bitcoins in this of stuffs is not really worth it, we are just wasting the profits that we could have if we are going to hold our bitcoins so that we could have profit in the long run, so for me, we should not spend our bitcoin as long as we could use fiat on buying things like buying a coffee.

[YuginKadoya]

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 really think that bitcoin can do it too any mere little transaction would be just a breeze for bitcoin I think that real problem is some users are aiming for big instead of a small investment right now because of the value of bitcoin and it's potential many was wanting a bigger investment because that is fast money I think the mindset of many billionaire with bitcoin why would they stick with a little earnings if they can manage a bigger one, well I think there are a few user that are starting in the bottom and investing for small earning with bitcoin.

[Soros Shorts]

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?

In all likelihood, a successful Coffee Coin would likely end up being a local/regional crypto. There would be many different types Coffee Coins each serving distinct groups of users and markets. Compared to BTC the security may be lowered, blocks may be slightly bigger and more frequent, TPS may be a little higher, but because there are many networks the throughput demands on each would not need to be ridiculously high.

At some level, no matter how good technology gets, broadcasting to and storing every low-value transaction at every node in the network would prevent you from building a network with a  Visa-like transaction rate.

[dinofelis]

In all likelihood, a successful Coffee Coin would likely end up being a local/regional crypto. There would be many different types Coffee Coins each serving distinct groups of users and markets. Compared to BTC the security may be lowered, blocks may be slightly bigger and more frequent, TPS may be a little higher, but because there are many networks the throughput demands on each would not need to be ridiculously high.

Indeed.  In my mind, this is the only way to get a scalable system of block chain crypto: many different small chains, crossed over by decentralized exchanges linking several together, using "higher tier" reserve currencies to settle and to be used as collateral.

I also see this with currencies coming and going, thousantds of little altcoins in an eco system continuously getting born and dying.  In how much we get a few big "backbone" reserve currencies, or in how much this is a mesh, I don't know. 

For the moment, we have a chain.  That's ridiculously inefficient as you point out:

At some level, no matter how good technology gets, broadcasting to and ss istoring every low-value transaction at every node in the network would prevent you from building a network with a  Visa-like transaction rate.

Amen.

Other topologies, like trees, unlinked graphs, or even meshes are way, way more interesting to explore.

[QuestionAuthority]

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?

In all likelihood, a successful Coffee Coin would likely end up being a local/regional crypto. There would be many different types Coffee Coins each serving distinct groups of users and markets. Compared to BTC the security may be lowered, blocks may be slightly bigger and more frequent, TPS may be a little higher, but because there are many networks the throughput demands on each would not need to be ridiculously high.

At some level, no matter how good technology gets, broadcasting to and storing every low-value transaction at every node in the network would prevent you from building a network with a  Visa-like transaction rate.

There is currently one method with inexpensive transactions, a very fast network, that is local/regional and widely used to purchase coffee.