Bitcoin Elitists Ignoring the 3rd world

[AgentofCoin]

But here we are just asking for cheaper fees on transactions, that could be achieved just by improving the technology, making the transactions complete faster. This way Bitcoin can help third world countries instantly.

When you "improve technology" to make transactions cheaper and faster (which in theory
will help the 3rd world), where do you think the expenses for the cheaper and faster aspects
get transferred to? If you do not want the users to pay the costs, who do you think should pay
for the cheaper and faster transactions?

The Bitcoin network is more expense than average payment platforms because the expenses
are not subsidized by governments or banks, but is fully maintained by the users and the
network itself. It was designed like this so that there would be no middlemen or controls.  
In theory, every time a user performs a transaction, the expenses/cost of the network increases.

If you don't want users to pay the higher fees, who should be forced to pay them?

If the technology is improved no one must pay higher fees, as the system will work faster. The cost increases because the number of pending transactions increases faster than it finishes. If the network is "empty" of transactions you pay cheaper fees as yours will be processed instantly and you don't need to pay an expensive fee to be put on the top.

No, there is two types of "technology improvement" that can exist.
 - One, is the improvement of technology by time and human innovation.
(for example, a horse & cart improved into an automobile.)
 - The other, is improvement of technology, by taking a current aspect away.
(For example, a slow bicycle with training wheels improved into a fast bicycle without.)

Bitcoin, as it currently exists, for "technology to improve" for faster and
cheaper transactions, something within the system must be taken away to allow
that ability. The current costs exist for different purposes that are important, they
were not throw in for fun. They are not a burden to the system, but in a way is the
nature of this type of enclosed online non-government secured payment system.

The costs do not increase because "pending transaction are piling up". The costs
increase in this system because the short term expense allocation increases too fast
to safely maintain and distribute throughout the node network. This prevents the
system from certain block attack vectors on the network. For an example, think
about the stock markets. When there is a run on the stocks and the markets fall
too quickly, the emergency safety breaker activates to stop the trading (in our
case it doesn't stop, but slows) When you feel the expense and time delay in
getting a transaction confirmed, that is the safety breaker attempting to bring
order from the current disorder. (The fee market that develops from this disorder
is only a byproduct designed to allow time sensitive txs to jump the queue.)

So simply, the 1MB limit helps distribute data for block work/validation in an efficient
and balanced manner. If the transactions could all be cheap and fast, then the system
will quickly grow to the point in which it becomes legally regulatable by governments
and thus valueless to users and society in general. The true value of Bitcoin/bitcoin
comes from it's non-conformance to the current legal and financial system.

We, the users are paying all the costs. But may you are saying if the fees are too cheap the miners will lose interest on it, right?

No, I am not saying if fees are too cheap miners will lose interest, I am talking
about something different. What I am saying is if you want cheaper and faster txs,
you will need to give up decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly.
In my opinion, if that occurs, Bitcoin and its token, has no legitimate value except
as a ponzi. If you sold that new ponzi token to the poor in 2nd and 3rd world countries,
those ponzi pushers will become one of the worst of humanity and will go down in history
as immoral and unhonorable people. They might be super rich off the backs of the
scammed poor, but they will still be seen as the bane of society we attempted to correct.

Bitcoin realists refusing to "fix" perfectly functioning system in the hopes of achieving unrealistic goals which could potentially destroy the very unique properties which make Bitcoin useful in the first place.
There, fixed that title for you OP. You're welcome in advance.

Holliday said it in one concise sentence.
I fully agree and should probably work on writing less paragraphs. Lol.

[Juggy777]

People here keep ignoring the fact that most users come from the 2nd or 3rd word, where the income is not that good as some arrogant 1st worlders like to believe.

I kind of thought at first that all these evangelists really want the best for Bitcoin users, how they talk about the "saving of the 3rd world", but nowadays it looks like just another one of those empty slogans, some marketing gimmick just to pool wool over your eyes while the bullshit continues, that kind of thing.

According to the ILO, the global average monthly wage is 1700$.

The income inequality factor is about 80%, so 80% of the world earns less than this.


Yet you idiots complain about the block size, and that means 30-40$ fees now. You guys are totally insane if you think there will be any mass adoption with these kinds of levels.

Wake up dreamers! Reality will punch ya in the face. I would earn 40$ net income / week at a shitty daily job. Too bad I am unemployed so I can't even earn that.

How the fuck do you think Bitcoin will reach any mass adoption with this lunatic levels of fees? I get that you guys are arrogant 1st worlders sitting in your cozy 500 square meter homes with your jacuzzi and mercedes cars in your garage complaining about this or that.

But the truth is simple, most people are poor, including myself, so we are not going to use a currency that is so elitist that it demand people to hand over 1 week worth of pay to some arrogant miner sitting at the other half of the world drinking sweet coffee.
 
Either fix the fee problem, or say bye bye to Bitcoin.

Isn't it so convenient that you have voiced your frustration in the guile of the second and third world? Look op the fees are not in our hands, those are the miners fees whether you like it or not, there actually nothing one can do about it, better to live with it or if you want to quit Bitcoins fine do it, less negative people that's better. Bitcoin did not promise you anything or constant money and you are supposed to earn from a job or something so focus on that. Oh by the way Asian countries have adopted Bitcoins despite the fees.

[ploki180]

Sure. I m completely with you. And I also do not want to move the poor into unsafe stuff.

[mrcash02]

When there is a run on the stocks and the markets fall
too quickly, the emergency safety breaker activates to stop the trading (in our
case it doesn't stop, but slows) When you feel the expense and time delay in
getting a transaction confirmed, that is the safety breaker attempting to bring
order from the current disorder. (The fee market that develops from this disorder
is only a byproduct designed to allow time sensitive txs to jump the queue.)

Fast/cheap transactions don't mean the BTC price will fall and crash quickly like could happen at the stock markets.
It would just work like a normal currency (or isn't it to be a normal currency?)

So simply, the 1MB limit helps distribute data for block work/validation in an efficient
and balanced manner. If the transactions could all be cheap and fast, then the system
will quickly grow to the point in which it becomes legally regulatable by governments
and thus valueless to users and society in general. The true value of Bitcoin/bitcoin
comes from it's non-conformance to the current legal and financial system.

Seems the 1MB limit isn't enough, otherwise they wouldn't increase it to 2MB.
Also, I don't understand why the system growing quickly would make it becomes legally regulatable by governments.

What I am saying is if you want cheaper and faster txs,
you will need to give up decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly.
In my opinion, if that occurs, Bitcoin and its token, has no legitimate value except
as a ponzi. If you sold that new ponzi token to the poor in 2nd and 3rd world countries,
those ponzi pushers will become one of the worst of humanity and will go down in history
as immoral and unhonorable people. They might be super rich off the backs of the
scammed poor, but they will still be seen as the bane of society we attempted to correct.

Why must we give up the decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly to have cheaper and fast transactions?
There wouldn't be directly intervention, the system would work by itself as it's now, but with proportional power to the number of transactions/users.

The only way these ponzi pushers you say could become rich is if they hold lots of coins and keep holding to make the BTC price increase (controlling the supply, increasing the demand) and then sell when they think BTC has a good price. Anyway, the risk this happen exists now too.

Bitcoin realists refusing to "fix" perfectly functioning system in the hopes of achieving unrealistic goals which could potentially destroy the very unique properties which make Bitcoin useful in the first place.
There, fixed that title for you OP. You're welcome in advance.

Holliday said it in one concise sentence.
I fully agree and should probably work on writing less paragraphs. Lol.

So, if Bitcoin seeks the perfection, Bitcoin could be destroyed in the middle of way?

[Kakmakr]

Bitcoin was supposed to be a alternative for cash payments and over the years people has started to hoard it and it has become a store of value for the rich and the poor. It has already protected the wealth of many people in 3rd world countries, where their governments has basically destroyed their local currency with bad political decisions. Bitcoin has also been attacked by arrogant 1st world capitalists, like Roger Ver and this contributed to the higher fees.

You cannot stop people from being greedy, but you can highlight their mistakes and destroy their legacy that are based on greed. ^hmmmmmm^

[iamTom123]

I am sympathizing with you on this issue. It has been a long time since many of the so-called Bitcoin leaders have been paying a lip service to the Bitcoin users from the third world countries. They have been acting as if we don't actually exist but the time is coming when majority (if this is not happening now) of users would be based not anymore in the Western world but somewhere else.

There would be a coming revolution for Bitcoin as far as users distribution is concerned. Unfortunately, Bitcoin is not having a democratic system where the voice of the majority of users can also be heard and verified. For now, many of us ordinary users and holders are treated as if non-existent in the continuing scaling debate.

I am wishing that there would be somebody who would present our concerns and voice too. As of now, there is no clear framework where people like us can be heard. And this is something we have to work for to make Bitcoin really a revolutionary tool for all of us.

[hv_]

Elitists and other elitists:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/generalmoney/someone-held-up-a-buy-bitcoin-sign-during-yellens-testimony-to-congress/vi-BBEj52F

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/12/business/12reuters-swiss-banks-falcon-bitcoin.html?mcubz=1

[AgentofCoin]

When there is a run on the stocks and the markets fall
too quickly, the emergency safety breaker activates to stop the trading (in our
case it doesn't stop, but slows) When you feel the expense and time delay in
getting a transaction confirmed, that is the safety breaker attempting to bring
order from the current disorder. (The fee market that develops from this disorder
is only a byproduct designed to allow time sensitive txs to jump the queue.)

Fast/cheap transactions don't mean the BTC price will fall and crash quickly like could happen at the stock markets.
It would just work like a normal currency (or isn't it to be a normal currency?)

I didn't say anything you said above.

The stock market emergency breaker system was an example for you to better
understand the true purpose of the "1MB limit". It has nothing to do with cheap
or fast transactions, that is very wrong. That is like saying a certain size petrol
tank is a restriction to cheaper petrol at the pump. It is not how things actually
function.

A "normal currency" is a government controlled device. So very simply, Bitcoin
is not and does not function like a "normal currency" since it is not controlled
nor subsidized by a government. Satoshi actually programmed the protocol to
contradict the current financial philosophy of currency.

So simply, the 1MB limit helps distribute data for block work/validation in an efficient
and balanced manner. If the transactions could all be cheap and fast, then the system
will quickly grow to the point in which it becomes legally regulatable by governments
and thus valueless to users and society in general. The true value of Bitcoin/bitcoin
comes from it's non-conformance to the current legal and financial system.

Seems the 1MB limit isn't enough, otherwise they wouldn't increase it to 2MB.
Also, I don't understand why the system growing quickly would make it becomes legally regulatable by governments.

Risking a contentious hardfork for only a 2MB bump is a very bizarre action
and shows lack of concern for network security and the actual users. This
2MB bump, if successful in not causing any problems now or in the future,
will never help the users in any meaningful way. The ignorant users are
being lied to about the cheaper and faster transactions. It is actually so
pointless, that it is more likely being used by miners or other unknown
entities for the purpose of intentionally causing two surviving chains. In
some circles, two chains is more profit, and in other circles, two chains is
a type of cryptocurrency attack vector.

As for governmental regulation of the protocol: What is you understanding
as to why governments did not make Bitcoin illegal originally, and why to
this day, do they not assert their obligation to bring it into conformance of law?
The governments regulate directly all things (water, land, property, air, petrol,
food, medicine, technology, etc), except the Bitcoin Network (currently). What
is your opinion as to why they do not do so? Why have you been allowed to
participate in this unregulated system by your government?  

What I am saying is if you want cheaper and faster txs,
you will need to give up decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly.
In my opinion, if that occurs, Bitcoin and its token, has no legitimate value except
as a ponzi. If you sold that new ponzi token to the poor in 2nd and 3rd world countries,
those ponzi pushers will become one of the worst of humanity and will go down in history
as immoral and unhonorable people. They might be super rich off the backs of the
scammed poor, but they will still be seen as the bane of society we attempted to correct.

Why must we give up the decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly to have cheaper and fast transactions?
There wouldn't be directly intervention, the system would work by itself as it's now, but with proportional power to the number of transactions/users.

The only way these ponzi pushers you say could become rich is if they hold lots of coins and keep holding to make the BTC price increase (controlling the supply, increasing the demand) and then sell when they think BTC has a good price. Anyway, the risk this happen exists now too.

In order to gain cheaper/faster transactions, something must be removed
from the network that causes an expense (like removing the truck or seat in
the automobile for a bigger petrol tank). The current expenses in the system
come from the decentralized aspects of the network and the government
unregulatability that comes from that designed and purposefully implemented
aspect. You can not add cheaper txs without equivalent subtraction from
somewhere else in the system.

You do not understand my "Ponzi pusher" example. What I am saying is that
IF Bitcoin becomes a ponzi due to the loss of decentralization in and of the
network and that network is allowed to continue, those ponzi pushers who
purposefully destroyed the system will go into the 2nd and 3rd worlds, and sell
those worthless bitcoin to uneducated poor. The poor will be told it provides
freedom, but will really only provide slavery and/or death.

Bitcoin realists refusing to "fix" perfectly functioning system in the hopes of achieving unrealistic goals which could potentially destroy the very unique properties which make Bitcoin useful in the first place.
There, fixed that title for you OP. You're welcome in advance.

Holliday said it in one concise sentence.
I fully agree and should probably work on writing less paragraphs. Lol.

So, if Bitcoin seeks the perfection, Bitcoin could be destroyed in the middle of way?

We are at near perfection for what it's original purpose was. There is no middle way at
this point in time. Over longer time periods, it will be able to reach a more middle path,
but currently there is no change that is a true middle path. Sacrifices must be made at
this point in time, if you want blocksize changes. Some sacrifices are acceptable and
others are not. Your viewpoint is of a sacrifice I can not accept as being appropriate or
safe at this time. Your desire for cheaper/faster transaction ignores what Bitcoin's actual
function is. Bitcoin was not created to serve your individually.