Bitcoin is getting destroyed

[MingLee]

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?

He's referencing a future where there may be $30 fees because the fees for the blockchain keep increasing, making Bitcoin a really elite-esque crypto and out of the average man's hands. And buying from an exchange is not a transaction fee ffs. This isn't hard to understand.
Ethereum takes care of them in one way and trades them for another problem.
I see your activity and I hope this is satire because this should be something you understand.

[RealBitcoin]

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?

Try moving coins from a used address with a long history (I get that you should not reuse an address, but most of the time it's just not feasible).

Fees can get as high as 50$ in peak hours. Just for a new transaction from a new address ,you already pay 5$ fees.

God forbid you try to create a transaction with multiple inputs and outputs, I can't even imagine how much fee you would pay for that.

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.

Yes Bitcoin doesnt need a million nodes, a couple thousand nodes are probably well enough for all humanity.

There are less clearinghouse banks in the world, so why do you need so many nodes.


It should be setup as the DASH system, with multiple tiered node systems, each doing a different layer of verification.

Node pruning does this, which is great. But we also need block increase as well.

[Xester]

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?

All bitcoin holders are hopeful of the upcoming UASF meeting that will decide the consensus towards increasing the blocksize as well as what will be the standard code for miners to use. With this we are hopeful that the miners fee will decrease since the blocksize will be increased to 2mb. Everything will be clear after August and hoping that the consensus as well as the segwit activation will open the way for a lower fee and fast transactions.

[malami]

I never pay more than a few $ in transaction fees don't see how you can get it to 30$, but regardless its still high and needs to be reduced if its to scale up.

[dinofelis]

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.

Yes Bitcoin doesnt need a million nodes, a couple thousand nodes are probably well enough for all humanity.

There are less clearinghouse banks in the world, so why do you need so many nodes.

You don't even need "thousand nodes".  As I pointed out, even one node is sufficient, as long as that node doesn't deny you access, because a node doesn't need to be trusted: it cannot serve fake data.  Given that mining pools need a node, which is also the source from which all other nodes can only copy (or refuse to copy and stop), in fact, the nodes of miner pools are sufficient for bitcoin's security.

You don't need many e-mail servers serving you the same e-mail with a signature for the security of the signed message.  If I send you a signed e-mail with my secret key of which you know the public key, and you KNOW that I sent you a message, then you only need one single e-mail server to get my message from.  No matter how much the single owner of that server can tamper with everything on it, you don't have to trust him: if you can download an e-mail with my signature, you know it is the right e-mail, it is not forged, and there is no other one.

This is why the whole debate of "my god, if ever we increase the block size, Joe will not be willing to buy a 3TB disk for his full node in his basement and bitcoin is centralized" is totally, totally ridiculous.  It is so ridiculous, and propagated by such knowledgeable people, that this is covering up an agenda.  First of all, because Joe will mostly be able to afford such a disk as you pointed out ; but second, because whether Joe is having his node in his basement or not, doesn't change zilch to the security or power model of bitcoin.

If you do technology based upon false assumptions or starting points, you will end up making a system that doesn't work well.   If people keep insisting on the false relationship between bitcoin's decentralization and the number of Joe's that have small computers running nodes in their basement, one is going to make decisions that are ill-fated.

Of course, the goldbugonomics of bitcoin reduces the block reward, and hence the financing of the (silly) cryptographic security of the ledger as time goes by, so somehow, transactions need to become scarce and expensive to take over from debasement.  This can be a good argument to introduce scarcity of transactions (killing the "fluid currency" concept if it wasn't yet dead by goldbugonomics).  My idea is that this argument is also used to force users off the block chain onto the LN.  Not for real, of course, because that will most probably never work for real, unless operated by "banking hubs", killing the last bit of "freedom money" that remained.

If bitcoin however, evolves towards what goldbugonomics drives it, namely, a speculative asset in a greater-fool pyramid game, then most probably, bitcoin doesn't need a very high transaction capacity (apart from the last day, when the final crash comes, but people cannot transact fast enough to sell their coins).  But 1 MB is too small.

BTW, I'm not against hard forks.  I think hard forking is natural, and in as much as two prongs emerge, that's good too.
Hard forks are great in that they don't need any "majority consensus" which is, by definition, impossible to obtain in a truly decentralized system.

Anybody can propose a hard fork, and if people take it on, then a new coin is born.  That's good.

[SvenBomvolen]

Lol bro bitcoin died about 100 or 200 times I am not sure for that but it is still alive and everything wil be fixed just to save bitcoin because we need him because it is really much better than fiat and so much popular.

I would not call the drop of the price as death. Bitcoin has it's ups and downs and this is normally to us already. Now we are really close to 3000$ price, but a new drop will not be a surprise to me. My strategy is HODL, I am waiting for 5000$.

[Sniper44]

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?

OP is mostly spreading FUD about bitcoin and the current situation, otherwise i doubt that anybody is left in bitcoin community that is unaware of the problems that bitcoin is currently facing with the big backlong and rising fees.

and no ether is not capable of taking care of these problems, it has even worse scaling issue than bitcoin has. the transactions fees of ether has already grown 10 times and it doesn't even have enough users to send transactions. and it will only get worse. and this is also true about majority of altcoins. they all seem good now because nobody uses them and their networks are empty of users but when they get a little bit more usage they all face the real problems.

[Lauda]

Why? How?

Due to both mining and node centralization.

Is segwit outside of bitcoins blockchain?

It is not.

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

I am not hiding anything, and neither are my arguments bad. You're an uneducated baboon. At least you aren't directly shilling for the BU trash.

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.

See, you claim my arguments are bad but you don't even know what decentralization is. Does the high user count of Visa == more decentralized? The number of users is completely irrelevent, we are talking about mining and node centralization which are already a problem to some degree today.

You must be living in an upside world.

No. Right now, without realizing it, you're acting exactly equal to the anti-vaccination people.

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.

Private currencies are useless.

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.

No. I have told you how Bitcoin is supposed to scale, at least in the medium-term whilst something better is found.

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

There is nothing that implies more users will be running more nodes.

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

No. Centralized, private blockchains, are not part of any form of 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.

There is no such thing.

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.

Wrong. Development is decentralized, the node count has been steadily growing and the mining, albeit still centralized, is much less centralized that it was in the past.

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?

That statement is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with reality. Classic FUD.

[LevshaK1]

Lol bro bitcoin died about 100 or 200 times I am not sure for that but it is still alive and everything wil be fixed just to save bitcoin because we need him because it is really much better than fiat and so much popular.

I would not call the drop of the price as death. Bitcoin has it's ups and downs and this is normally to us already. Now we are really close to 3000$ price, but a new drop will not be a surprise to me. My strategy is HODL, I am waiting for 5000$.

A new drop should not be a surprise, but an opportunity to buy as many coins at a cheap price in order to earn more money later.

[dinofelis]

and no ether is not capable of taking care of these problems, it has even worse scaling issue than bitcoin has. the transactions fees of ether has already grown 10 times and it doesn't even have enough users to send transactions. and it will only get worse. and this is also true about majority of altcoins. they all seem good now because nobody uses them and their networks are empty of users but when they get a little bit more usage they all face the real problems.

You shouldn't confuse the "size of the block chain" with "the scaling issue in bitcoin".   The scaling issue in bitcoin finds its origin in a belief that the size of the block chain should be relatively small, not in a genuine technical problem that a big block chain causes.  Bitcoin has a scaling problem because one wants to keep the block chain small, because there's a dogma that it should be small.    What is causing a problem in bitcoin right now is not the size of the block chain, but the LIMIT that one has set on that size (because, one believes that one would run into problems if one didn't, but for the moment, the remedy seems far worse than the imagined illness that never showed up).

Other crypto currencies don't adhere to that belief, and hence are not going to face a "similar" scaling problem.  If the belief in the potential problems of large block chains is justified, these crypto currencies will maybe run into these problems.  But if that belief is not justified and I fully think it isn't, then bitcoin is just hurting itself over a dogma with a problem it has created out of thin air, which other crypto currencies will simply not face.

So, yes, other crypto currencies make larger block sizes for a given number of transactions (Monero for instance, with its ring signatures).   But as it is absolutely not indicated that big block chains are a problem, as they don't have put, in the name of that belief, a hard limit on its size, they won't face the scaling issue of bitcoin.

[hv_]

wait.. will you be saying that when LN starts pushing people into multisig permissioned hubs/hops... which is the only 'gesture' benefit left that segwit is suppose to solve

I used to make fun of ETH and ETC. But it looks like even after the DAO and the ETC split disasters, ETH is much more reasonable than BTC now.

It has a similar market cap that BTC had 1 year ago, so ETH is only 1 year behind in progress, and if BTC doesn't pull together itself,  ETH might surpass BTC.

Same with DASH. People criticize DASH because of the masternode centralization. Well then what you call the Lightnight Network HUB transactions?

look even deeper at the Tier network being created.. top of the pyramid.. bitcoins DNS seeds, oh look majority blockstream maintained.. next down the list FIBRE network. ... then there is the core upstream filter nodes..
then the cludge of filtered downstream, no witness, non sanctioned, prunned, lite nodes.. then the next layer LN

then look when they start tweaking the DNS to not include certain versions(segwit activation) in the dns listing.. it all becomes super centralised.

This is exactly what i see coming as well and its in the making behind closed doors and meetings for invited ones and no minutes and action points published after.

Bit I still believe in the disruptive forces  sourcing this special community here, that is exactly split already i.o. To conquer,. Hard task but not hopeless!

Go on , keep it up.

[Alif Mahardika]

Is it true? i dont think so Because given the increasingly rapid development of bitcoin and peoples increasingly need it.

[dinofelis]

Same with DASH. People criticize DASH because of the masternode centralization. Well then what you call the Lightnight Network HUB transactions?

No.  DASH's principal critique comes not from the existence of master nodes, but rather from the scammy start of it, which lets one estimate that the original devs may just as well possess half of them, if they didn't spend their coins on girls and coke.

[krishnapramod]

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.  

Right now, the transaction fee is not much compared to the benefits that comes with using a decentralized currency. The current scenario is inevitable, it is always expected to happen, guess the mass adoption made it happen earlier. It will get worse, but it looks like the market does not give a shit about scaling issues and that's a good sign, but how long the market would be able to stand it's ground when bitcoin users start to realize that the transaction fee is somewhat getting proportional to the transaction amount?

Microtransactions are literally dead, paying a fee of $5 to $10 for a $100 transaction is understandable and manageable, but paying up to $30 for a $100 transaction would make some BTC users jump to alternatives.

Increasing the block size is just a temporary solution, with the way bitcoin is getting adopted it would get impossible to relay all the transactions on the main blockchain, no matter what the block size is. And an increase in block size has the potential to take away the decentralized nature of bitcoin.

Lightening network, offchain transactions, miner fees. As far as BTC market is booming, users would not bother much about these terms. They would pay the fee even it is 1/3rd of the transaction, yeah a scenario like this would definitely negatively affect users in tier-3 countries. Hope at least some temporary solution is found for the scaling issue before it turns into a crisis and users start whining about another bubble burst.

[tosmartak]

I totally agree with OP. With the way things are going, its chances of success are on a par with a coin-flip, somewhat leaning towards less than 50%. It is obvious most people who transact often are becoming fed up with this, which would apparently lead to an ever growing number of businesses drifting away from bitcoin and integrating ethereum or other altcoin.

Some bitcoin focused businesses now are following in the footsteps of many other, such as Coinbase, which never accepted any other digital currency until they added ethereum last year following an ever increasing congested bitcoin network.

Also, according to an article "Brave browser, a project much lauded in bitcoin, appears to be taking the same action, as are other businesses which seem to have no choice due to thin profit margins now eaten by a network that scientific studies have called inefficient."

Yet, bitcoin price cares less, but, as utility degrades, many have started asking about the tipping point and if it is reached, it is either the market gives bitcoin a second chance after attitudes are set that the network is slow, congested, expensive and lacking much utility or make other alternative decisions.

[bejo terus]

really? i dont think so, because many peoples use bitcoin and we all still need BTC.

[JaRViZZ]

really? i dont think so, because many peoples use bitcoin and we all still need BTC.

These are all false rumors of competitors or those who do not know how to use bitcoin. Bitcoin is constantly growing and there is no reason to worry.

[AGD]

OP is wrong. Bitcoin is not getting destroyed by high fees.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I agree. I live in the Philippines and don't have a single btc, mostly bits I manage to save up and hold. I only have my stash in an exchange and when I tried donating $1 to someone, I found the fee was almost $1 as well. Well, there goes microtransactions. Maybe this will actually benefit alts as more people use them for remittance and just use bitcoin for investment and trading.

[KroFly]

Bitcoin is constantly growing in price and in the future only good news. I do not understand who can say that it is being destroyed.