Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2024, 11:20:49 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin is getting destroyed  (Read 3139 times)
leopard2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014



View Profile
May 24, 2017, 11:12:21 PM
 #21


The funny thing is that gold transfer costs are cheaper than BTC transaction costs.

So transfering gold from 1 place to the other could cost less than transfering digital information via BTC blockchain.

Sending, say, $500 worth of gold, pseudonymously? And insured against theft? How? Any certified mail, packages etc. are logged in NSA databases with sender and recipient, for all eternity. To insure against theft, you will have to declare the content too.

And how do you send that internationally? To each and every country?

This is a really stupid comparison.

Having said that, I do believe that 1MB is not enough but I also believe that fees for onchain transactions must not be too cheap...transaction bytes on BTC blockchains are valuable.  Wink

Truth is the new hatespeech.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
May 24, 2017, 11:13:27 PM
 #22

1) Your knowledge is absurdly flawed.
2) This whole thread is nonsense. You have tried to FUD Bitcoin before.
3) This technology is very inefficient. This problem is not inherent to Bitcoin, but every blockchain. Look at Monero transaction fees, look at ETH transaction fees, Dash, LTC. Look at their transaction volume and scale it up and you shall see.
4) Does this mean that Bitcoin is doomed? No. This is a free market. If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will.
5) Continuing from point three, increasing the block size in attempts to accommodate the whole world will result in massive centralization of Bitcoin. Segwit + small block size increase -> layer 2. That's how you scale.

But now seeing that the transaction fees are 30$, I have utterly changed my mind, and I really hate myself for used to believe otherwise.
Outright lie and a fine example of your lack of education.

The fees are now higher than for international bank transfers.
They are not.

It's ridiculous how cheap storage is, and it's even more ridiculous that the transaction fee for 1 fucking transaction is now almost higher than 2.38 years of storage cost with a 8MB block!
Storage isn't the primary constraint. You're an idiot.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
leopard2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014



View Profile
May 24, 2017, 11:15:59 PM
 #23

pretty much agree with Lauda here  Smiley

Truth is the new hatespeech.
Thatstinks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 249
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 24, 2017, 11:18:31 PM
 #24

yeah bro totally destroyed, almost worthless now LOLOLOLOL  Cheesy

This is digital gold, insurance policy against fiat collapse, how much does it cost to transfer insurance policy betweeen buyer and seller?

use LTC or DOGE for pay and play  Wink
It's ridiculous how cheap storage is, and it's even more ridiculous that the transaction fee for 1 fucking transaction is now almost higher than 2.38 years of storage cost with a 8MB block!

You mean _YOUR_ storage cost, or that of millions of users who would have to store the "supersize me" blockchain, too?

*shaking head over stupidity of OP*

The OP is spot on and so has most of the replies, there IS a very obvious issue atm. The stupid one is the one who thinks its a coin is "digital gold". Our non tangible made up reward for doing math that can vanish and buy nothing in a time of true crisis if someone in gov so wishes....ya you're not the stupid one the OP is LOL

BTC will NEVER be a sanctioned means of currency by any leading country ever because quite simply, they don't control it. The tech is the real beauty here and the coin a way to play with money for a time.
RealBitcoin (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
May 24, 2017, 11:19:20 PM
 #25


Sending, say, $500 worth of gold, pseudonymously? And insured against theft? How? Any certified mail, packages etc. are logged in NSA databases with sender and recipient, for all eternity. To insure against theft, you will have to declare the content too.

And how do you send that internationally? To each and every country?

This is a really stupid comparison.

Having said that, I do believe that 1MB is not enough but I also believe that fees for onchain transactions must not be too cheap...transaction bytes on BTC blockchains are valuable.  Wink

No that is not how you send gold. You move gold by having your custodian doing it for you, from vault to vault. That should cost about 10$.

Yes fully insured, and onymously. Gold can't be anonymous. And you don't need to deliver gold to your house. Unless you want to store gold bars below your pillow, which is not a good idea from a perspective of burglary risk.

There are already several gold networks where you can do this, and the gold is all yours, you can deliver it to your house even, but usually it's not a good idea.

So if you can do that already with Gold, it's ridiculous to pay such high fees for Bitcoin. Bitcoin should not even have TX fees.

klaaas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 544



View Profile
May 24, 2017, 11:21:25 PM
 #26

This is digital gold
Yes it is now.

Interest on holding btc and so not making transactions often the fees are no biggy.

The funny thing is that gold transfer costs are cheaper than BTC transaction costs.

Depends From where to where you are going to travel.


Bitcoin is not an insurance policy against fiat collapse, since if you want widespread use of it, people will not put up with big fees.

It will help against banks falling.

Shopping online and sats back as a discount! (satsback) + LightningNetwork
RealBitcoin (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
May 24, 2017, 11:23:10 PM
 #27

1) Your knowledge is absurdly flawed.
2) This whole thread is nonsense. You have tried to FUD Bitcoin before.
3) This technology is very inefficient. This problem is not inherent to Bitcoin, but every blockchain. Look at Monero transaction fees, look at ETH transaction fees, Dash, LTC. Look at their transaction volume and scale it up and you shall see.
4) Does this mean that Bitcoin is doomed? No. This is a free market. If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will.
5) Continuing from point three, increasing the block size in attempts to accommodate the whole world will result in massive centralization of Bitcoin. Segwit + small block size increase -> layer 2. That's how you scale.

But now seeing that the transaction fees are 30$, I have utterly changed my mind, and I really hate myself for used to believe otherwise.
Outright lie and a fine example of your lack of education.

The fees are now higher than for international bank transfers.
They are not.

It's ridiculous how cheap storage is, and it's even more ridiculous that the transaction fee for 1 fucking transaction is now almost higher than 2.38 years of storage cost with a 8MB block!
Storage isn't the primary constraint. You're an idiot.


It's a pretty good debate if you start out with ad hominem attacks. Nice reasoning skills.

    ●  First of all who said that Bitcoin should have a monopoly. People could store their wealth in multiple private currencies, that could be more scaleable, decentralized and voluntary. Everyone can just create his own cryptocurrency.

    ●  Secondly, why do you even need transaction fees when the miners already get BLOCK REWARDS. There should not be a TX fee until all coins are mined out.

    ●  Thirdly, network and processing power speeds are also following Moore's law. They will all get cheaper, so why would you want to make Bitcoin more expensive to use?

RealBitcoin (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
May 24, 2017, 11:35:42 PM
 #28

4) Does this mean that Bitcoin is doomed? No. This is a free market. If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will.

Hahaha you live in an echochamber.

Yeah like your average Philipines guy will pay 100$ per TX, when his salary is 152$


Your Philipines guy makes 5.522$/day (before taxes)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/philippines/wages

Your Indian guy guy makes 4.20$/day (before taxes)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/wages



https://cryptortrust.com/news/news/

Good luck making 3rd worlders pay 100$ /transaction. Oh and did I mention that 80% of Bitcoin users are from 3rld world. Good luck dooming bitcoin by alienating 80% of Bitcoin users, and making them join Dash.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
May 24, 2017, 11:45:04 PM
 #29

It's a pretty good debate if you start out with ad hominem attacks. Nice reasoning skills.
This isn't ad hominem. Another display of your lack of education. This is an insult, it has nothing to do with your argument and is therefore not a fallacy.

People could store their wealth in multiple private currencies, that could be more scaleable, decentralized and voluntary. Everyone can just create his own cryptocurrency.
1) Private currency != decentralized.
2) More currencies does not imply scalability. They are all equally limited with their scalability problem.
3) Own cryptocurrency == centralized, mutable, and not censorship resistant.

Secondly, why do you even need transaction fees when the miners already get BLOCK REWARDS. There should not be a TX fee until all coins are mined out.
Nonsense. Fees are required long before the reward approaches zero or you will end up with near-zero security.

Thirdly, network and processing power speeds are also following Moore's law.
"Network power" has nothing to do with Moore's law. You are talking about Nielsen's law. Neither of which are actual laws, but are predictions. Neither of which substantially help with the main problems. Your knowledge is the equivalent of a trained monkey.

They will all get cheaper, so why would you want to make Bitcoin more expensive to use?
This kind of statement resembles religious fanatics who haven't even completed secondary school trying to argue quantum decoherence versus the leading quantum physics experts.

Hahaha you live in an echochamber.
No.

Yeah like your average Philipines guy will pay 100$ per TX, when his salary is 152$
Are you mentally incapacitated? I explicitly said: "If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will. ".

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Pursuer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1163


Where is my ring of blades...


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:01:30 AM
 #30

wait a minute!
didn't you say goodbyte to bitcoin and go away like 3 months ago because you said bitcoin is over?! and then you said I have to leave the bitcoin community after many years, yadda yadda!

oh wait here is the topic: Goodbye Bitcoin Grin

* just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Only Bitcoin
Duzter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 256


Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:09:05 AM
 #31

Bitcoin price has increased along with major inflow of investment as well increased users compared to the past. Not only bitcoin everything grows in the similar way, for the same we cannot say that bitcoin is under destruction or getting destroyed.

█▀▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄▄
.
Stake.com
▀▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄▄█
   ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
   ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██  ▄████▄
   ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██  ██████
   ██ ██████████ ██      ██ ██████████ ██   ▀██▀
   ██ ██      ██ ██████  ██ ██      ██ ██    ██
   ██ ██████  ██ █████  ███ ██████  ██ ████▄ ██
   ██ █████  ███ ████  ████ █████  ███ ████████
   ██ ████  ████ ██████████ ████  ████ ████▀
   ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
   ██            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀            ██ 
   ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███  ██  ██  ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██████████████████████████████████████████
▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█  ▄▀▄             █▀▀█▀▄▄
█  █▀█             █  ▐  ▐▌
█       ▄██▄       █  ▌  █
█     ▄██████▄     █  ▌ ▐▌
█    ██████████    █ ▐  █
█   ▐██████████▌   █ ▐ ▐▌
█    ▀▀██████▀▀    █ ▌ █
█     ▄▄▄██▄▄▄     █ ▌▐▌
█                  █▐ █
█                  █▐▐▌
█                  █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀       ▐█▌       ▀█▄
██         ▐█▌         ██
████▄     ▄█████▄     ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀    █████████████    ▀███
██       ███████████       ██
▀█▄       █████████       ▄█▀
▀█▄    ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄  ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████         ███████▀
▀█████▄       ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀
█▀▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄▄
.
PLAY NOW
▀▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄▄█
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:19:09 AM
 #32

Bitcoin price has increased along with major inflow of investment as well increased users compared to the past. Not only bitcoin everything grows in the similar way, for the same we cannot say that bitcoin is under destruction or getting destroyed.

it can (and hopefully will) have a much higher price and stable future once a scaling solution is implemented.   if not, expect it to keep bleeding marketshare (even with higher prices)


RealBitcoin (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:25:10 AM
 #33

It's a pretty good debate if you start out with ad hominem attacks. Nice reasoning skills.
This isn't ad hominem. Another display of your lack of education. This is an insult, it has nothing to do with your argument and is therefore not a fallacy.

People could store their wealth in multiple private currencies, that could be more scaleable, decentralized and voluntary. Everyone can just create his own cryptocurrency.
1) Private currency != decentralized.
2) More currencies does not imply scalability. They are all equally limited with their scalability problem.
3) Own cryptocurrency == centralized, mutable, and not censorship resistant.

Secondly, why do you even need transaction fees when the miners already get BLOCK REWARDS. There should not be a TX fee until all coins are mined out.
Nonsense. Fees are required long before the reward approaches zero or you will end up with near-zero security.

Thirdly, network and processing power speeds are also following Moore's law.
"Network power" has nothing to do with Moore's law. You are talking about Nielsen's law. Neither of which are actual laws, but are predictions. Neither of which substantially help with the main problems. Your knowledge is the equivalent of a trained monkey.

They will all get cheaper, so why would you want to make Bitcoin more expensive to use?
This kind of statement resembles religious fanatics who haven't even completed secondary school trying to argue quantum decoherence versus the leading quantum physics experts.

Hahaha you live in an echochamber.
No.

Yeah like your average Philipines guy will pay 100$ per TX, when his salary is 152$
Are you mentally incapacitated? I explicitly said: "If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will. ".


Okay okay, so hide your bad arguments inside a haystack full of insults and character attacks.

Quote
5) Continuing from point three, increasing the block size in attempts to accommodate the whole world will result in massive centralization of Bitcoin. Segwit + small block size increase -> layer 2. That's how you scale.

Can you explain this, because it doesn't make sense to me. How the hell will Bitcoin centralize if you add more people to it? That is the dictionary definition of decentralization.

More users = more decentralized.

You must be living in an upside world.

Quote
2) More currencies does not imply scalability. They are all equally limited with their scalability problem.

This is exactly what I was getting at.

So above you said that you can't add more people to Bitcoin, and here you say that you can't have more users creating their own altcoins.

So basically you are saying that only we (a few million users) can use cryptocurrencies, and the rest of the world should stick to fiat? Because that is what I am understanding from your point.

It's total nonsense.


If you have more people running more nodes in Bitcoin, then it doesnt become centralized.

Similarily if you have more people creating their own coins (which is more nodes in general for their own coins), is more decentralization.

Not only it's competition inside the altcoin space (may the best one win), but it's also more decentralized as everyone can work on his own project and doesnt have to rely on a centralized developer team to make the code for them.

Isn't that wonderful?

Or is your idea to basically just have a centralized development team with a centralized mining system, with diminishing node count? Well that is Bitcoin currently.

RealBitcoin (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1009


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:28:34 AM
 #34

Bitcoin price has increased along with major inflow of investment as well increased users compared to the past. Not only bitcoin everything grows in the similar way, for the same we cannot say that bitcoin is under destruction or getting destroyed.

In a Free Market profit goes up while operating costs go down.

But apperently Lauda doesn't know how a free market works:


Are you mentally incapacitated? I explicitly said: "If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will. ".


In his version of a free market, profit goes down while transaction fees go up. Totally reversed world  Cheesy

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:30:41 AM
 #35

Bitcoin price has increased along with major inflow of investment as well increased users compared to the past. Not only bitcoin everything grows in the similar way, for the same we cannot say that bitcoin is under destruction or getting destroyed.

In a Free Market profit goes up while operating costs go down.

But apperently Lauda doesn't know how a free market works:


Are you mentally incapacitated? I explicitly said: "If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will. ".


In his version of a free market, profit goes down while transaction fees go up. Totally reversed world  Cheesy

Don't waste your time w Lauda.  he/she's the biggest troll on this forum.   A shameless blockstream butt licker.


franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4256
Merit: 4523



View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:50:26 AM
 #36

im laughing at lauda's "free market"

does lauda understand the math of average tx fee... vs reactive tx fee..

the average tx fee mechanism does not drop the fee down to 0 when there is no demand.

imagine for 10 blocks people pay 0.0001.. then a spammer puts in a load of tx's that cause that SINGLE block to be 0.001
now before even caring about what the demand is.. lets say block 12 demand was 0.. the average is already at 0.00019 not 0.00010 or less
so even with no demand peoples estimate tx fee average is suggesting people pay 0.00019 or more!!.. even without caring about demand

if anyone is over 8 years old and has more than a 3 second attention span can easily use excel to do some basic maths and realise the price
does not naturally drop in low demand anymore..

0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000  
0.00010000  
0.00100000
0.00019000
0.00019900
0.00020890
0.00021979
0.00023177
0.00024495
0.00025944
0.00027538
0.00029292
0.00031222

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
naughty1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 25, 2017, 03:55:51 AM
 #37

You know I've been here for 3-4 years now, and I have seen Bitcoin rollercoaster from 700$ down to 100$ and now back up to 2000$. A very interesting rollercoaster indeed.

I was a Bitcoin purist, thinking that Bitcoin has to be what it was coded for, this meant no hardforks. Yet I have realized that this is a very closed-minded position, and very dogmatic.

It seems like everybody here is dogmatic about this, you think you are very smart and you know things better, it's just pure arrogance. And when anybody has a dissenting view, they get marginalized or maybe even banned.

I had an ignore list of 50+ people who were shouting very hardly that Bitcoin's current path is unsustainable. And instead of hearing their opinions, I just ignored them, because that is how an intelligent open minded person behaves.

From my point of view they looked like trolls, just like some pesky mosquitos trying to annoy people. This is how arrogant I was in my belief in the small blocksize.

But now seeing that the transaction fees are 30$, I have utterly changed my mind, and I really hate myself for used to believe otherwise.

It looks like guys like franky1 were right, the 1 MB blocksize is really a piece of shit limit. The fees are now higher than for international bank transfers.

Can you believe this bullshit? A bank transfer that goes through 1 million regulatory loops, and it's inefficiently processed in 4 days costs less than a decentralized P2P payment system? It's utterly disgusting. In fact if the blocksize is not raised, maybe it will take 4 days to confirm/settle BTC transactions too.

And even the idiots who said that the nodes would be burdened if the block size were increased are just pure idiots. How is that possible if the price is 2000$ and they can earn huge revenues from mining or whatever other ventures they do.

I used to ridicule 2MB blocks, but now I believe maybe a 8MB block is not even a big deal. If you can earn 100$/month net income, what the hell does it costs you to buy a 1 Terrabyte harddisk for 40$? It would just be 35 GB monthly, your 1 TB harddisk would last you 2.38 years. Out of the 2356$ you would make in that time, that would only cost you 40$.

It's ridiculous how cheap storage is, and it's even more ridiculous that the transaction fee for 1 fucking transaction is now almost higher than 2.38 years of storage cost with a 8MB block!
I understand what you say, but it's just the risk, currently, segwit is being considered as the best way to solve every bitcoin problem. But, as far as I know, they will choose 2mb segwit, not 8mb. Do not worry about it, bitcoin developers will find the most logical way to develop bitcoin.





        ▄▄█████████▄▄
     ▄███▀▀       ▀▀███▄
   ▄██▀               ▀██▄
  ██▀ ▄▄             ▄▄ ▀██
 ██▀  ▐██████▄ ▄██████▌  ▀██
██▀    ██  ███ ███  ██    ▀██
██      █▄ ▐██ ██▌ ▄█      ██
██▄      ▀ ▐██ ██▌ ▀      ▄██
 ██▄        ██ ██        ▄██
  ██▄        ███        ▄██
   ▀██▄              ▄██▀
     ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
        ▀▀█████████▀▀
.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      ██                                         
██████████  ▄▄  ██▄▄▄▄▄▄  ▄▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  ██▄     
██          ██  ████████  ██  ████████  █████████  ████▄   
██          ██  ██        ██     ▄▄██▀  ██   ▄██▀  ██ ▀██▄ 
██          ██  ██        ██  ▄██▀▀     ██▄██▀▀    ██   ▀██▄
██████████  ██  ████████  ██  ████████  █████████  ██     ██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀     ▀▀

Finance




           ▄█▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████
         ▄█████▄   ▀███████████
 █▄    ▄█████████    ██████████
 ███▄▄█████████▀   ▄██████████▌
 ████████████▀   ▄████████████
▐██████████▀   ▄█████████▀ ▀██
▐█████████▄   █████████▀     ▀
████████████▄  ▀█████▀
███████▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█▀







Dudeperfect
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 534


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2017, 04:31:13 AM
 #38

I agree that increasing transaction fees and higher confirmation time would be a critical issue in the future and we must find a practical solution for it for to sustain in the long term and that would be important from the growth perspective. People would prefer bitcoin as far as it is better than traditional fiat transfer infrastructure in terms of cost, time and usability and we still have some time to find a concrete solution.
williamevanl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 404
Merit: 253


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 04:37:16 AM
 #39

Well this is interesting 30$ transaction fees? I don't follow, if I buy from coinbase, it doesn't cost 30+ what I"m purchasing, why? Also does ether take care of these problems?
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 629


View Profile
May 25, 2017, 04:41:21 AM
Last edit: May 25, 2017, 05:10:26 AM by dinofelis
 #40

You know I've been here for 3-4 years now, and I have seen Bitcoin rollercoaster from 700$ down to 100$ and now back up to 2000$. A very interesting rollercoaster indeed.

I was a Bitcoin purist, thinking that Bitcoin has to be what it was coded for, this meant no hardforks. Yet I have realized that this is a very closed-minded position, and very dogmatic.

It seems like everybody here is dogmatic about this, you think you are very smart and you know things better, it's just pure arrogance. And when anybody has a dissenting view, they get marginalized or maybe even banned.

I had an ignore list of 50+ people who were shouting very hardly that Bitcoin's current path is unsustainable. And instead of hearing their opinions, I just ignored them, because that is how an intelligent open minded person behaves.

I fully agree with the silly dogmatism that reigns in bitcoin land.   I have to say I came late to bitcoin ; in mid 2014.  I had heard of it before, but I thought it was something like the failed e-cash system I was very close to about 10 years earlier.  Back then I was enthusiastic, I saw it fail, and I realized that "freedom money" was not going to be possible.  I didn't immediately grasp the decentralized aspect of bitcoin.  I was mesmerized.  THIS was finally "freedom money" !

In the mean time, I saw it evolve from a system where one could, indeed, transact value in a "permissionless" way, into a speculative gambler's feast.  In the beginning, I thought it was great it was taking up value.  Then it started to annoy me that people seemed to focus on speculation more than on usage.  After all, "freedom money" is not to speculate or to get rich with because you happen NOT to be a person occupied doing valuable things, but because you happen to gamble some money at the right time in the beginning and just sit on your ass, right ?  That's exactly the sort of financial game that is making our banking system sick, so this should NOT be the essence of "freedom money", right ?  So when was the speculative bubble of bitcoin going to crash, finally, and start following "Fisher's formula" which is the true value of a currency used to buy stuff with ? After the 2013 crash, I thought that bitcoin was going to "de-bubble" and that people had been burned enough not to start over.  Bitcoin's price was happily going down, and my idea was that it was going to arrive at a few tens of $, its "Fisher price" rough estimation.

But no, speculation took of again, with the "halving", etc....  I didn't understand it.  Where was this sick speculation coming from ?   So I set out finding out why.  I now realize that it was made that way. "gold bug economics" but with huge initial seigniorage, can be nothing else but speculation.  The more I studied the game-theoretical aspects of bitcoin, the more I realized: this thing is broken beyond repair as a currency.  About everything in it is set up for it to fail as a normal day-to-day currency.   However, bitcoin is not dead, and will not die.  But it is something else.  It is not gold either.  Gold has had the bulk of its seigniorage hundreds or thousands of years ago.  Gold, economically speaking, "existed for ever".  It had its "price rise" so long ago, that no economic effect is felt today.  You can *reasonably" speculate on gold, like you can speculate on anything, but you won't do factors of 1000.    So what is bitcoin then ?  It is simply a huge greater-fool system.  No more and no less.  And what's driving it ?   A delusional story, of "the new money for the 21st century", what it is exactly designed not to become.  It is brilliantly designed as one of the better greater-fool traps in history.  

This is one of the greatest dogma's in bitcoin, that it should sustain "all payments of the world" one day.  It is not going to, but if you point out that its economic design is everything but that, and is nothing else but one of the biggest pyramid games in history, you hit a dogma.  I'm sorry that it is that.  I would have preferred "freedom money".  But it isn't.  Its price in the market is not set by the demand for bitcoin in order to buy stuff with.  Its price in the market is set by the demand of speculators that want to leave it to greater fools, making a benefit on it.  That's the definition of a pyramid game. If you mainly want an asset for the sole reason of selling it for a higher price to someone else later, and if this demand is what sets its price, and there's no "sound fundamental" backing it up, then this IS a pyramid game.

The other dogma is a cryptographic idiocy, namely that bitcoin's decentralization is depending on how many copies of the sole ledger are around, which brings us to the block size.  A payment system in which the ledger has to be integrally copied by all/most users, is a system of which the burden *per user* increases linearly with the size of the network.  Such a thing always crumbles under its own weight.    The more users the network has, the higher the burden *per user*.  This is crazy. It means that the total burden of a network goes QUADRATICALLY with the network size.  No reasonable system does so.

But on top of that, it is cryptographically not necessary.  If there's one block chain cryptographically available (no other one is actively being made), then *a few independent copies* are sufficient.  Not every user needs such an integral copy.  It doesn't help him in anything.  There is cryptographically no way to "fake" block chains, because the PoW can be checked by just the header list, and in any case there's no possibility to fake it without delivering the PoW, so without genuine mining. The only thing that must be decentralized as a check, is the *header list*.  You cannot fake it.  Once you have the header list, there's no way in which one can sell you "fake blocks", because their "signature", their Merkle tree hash, is in the (verified) header list.
So whether these blocks are 1 MB, 10 MB, or 50 GB each, doesn't really matter, they cannot be faked if the header list is right.  Nobody can sell you a fake block.  You don't need them all.  You only need those of the transactions you are concerned with, to verify that you obtained a transaction, or that you sent a transaction. (*)

If there are, say, 20 full nodes in the world, serving these data, that's largely sufficient, because no-one can fake the data, and there is no other data "in competition" available.  Satoshi already explained that, his logic is correct, but is conveniently ignored.

In *such* a case, a block chain system is NOT having a burden that goes quadratically with its users, but essentially linear/logarithmic, and COULD hence perfectly sustain growth without the slightest problem.  A few full nodes being the "world servers" of the single block chain is good enough, because that chain cannot be faked.  You cannot receive "erroneous data" from such a server, because you can check it against the header list that you DO maintain.

So all this "block size debate" is based upon a totally erroneous/bogus argument, namely the "need for this data to be copied a number of times, proportional to the number of users", which kills its growth.  It is another dogma, but this time, invented afterwards.

So, if bitcoin didn't have an economic design that induces pure speculation, it could have become a freedom currency, but its speculative behaviour transforms it in one of the better pyramid games of history ; and if that silly dogma of "everyone needs a full copy" wasn't maintained, it could technically sustain network growth without a problem.

Bitcoin has OTHER fundamental errors in its design, like using PoW for coin creation AND consensus, which industrializes and centralizes the decision-making process in bitcoin.

This is why I think bitcoin was a good idea, but is so badly designed, that essentially it KILLED the notion of freedom money it was supposed to become.

(*) edit:  it is important to realize that even if there are only 20 nodes out there, you don't need to TRUST them.  They cannot give you a fake block.  The only blocks that you can get from them, are true blocks, because these are the only ones that comply with their Merkle hash to the header list you received.  This is somewhat similar to the fact that you don't have to trust your e-mail server when you receive a cryptographically signed message.  If the signature verifies, then your e-mail server gave you the right copy of that message, he cannot give you a false one.  If you *know* that your e-mail server received exactly one such message (if you KNOW that you want block 480721), then the only thing that e-mail server can do, is to send you the right message, or refuse to send you a message.  This is why one node would in fact be sufficient, apart from the fact that that one node could decide to deny you access.  This is why some copies around are needed.  But cryptographically, from the moment you know that you can get a copy of a specific block, you do not need to trust the entity that gives you that block.  They cannot fake it.

You don't even need a full block, but just the "Merkle path" to the transaction that you need.  It cannot be faked either.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »  All
  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!