|
Serith (OP)
|
 |
September 12, 2011, 08:58:32 PM
Last edit: September 12, 2011, 09:46:40 PM by Serith |
|
I think that if Bitcoin gains noticeable portion of world transactions volume, then it will be just a matter of time before a major corporation will develop it's own limited or non-open source crypto currency and promote it to customers. And merged mining will be very useful to the company because it gives access to Bitcoin mining power for free, the company will just need to convince several pool operators to run small software.
EDIT: I changed thread subject so it would better reflect poll question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's
computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be
reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
gusti
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1099
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 12, 2011, 09:11:23 PM |
|
Disagree. Visa and Paypal actually have a very large portion of the market, why will they change to a new different system ?
Anyway, merged mining will bring many new questions to the ecosystem. Many different blockchains may benefit from that mining power, but it will not be a free lunch for them. And *if* pools will be benefiting from that, they will need to share profits with miners to stay in business.
Others implications from merged mining may also arise, discuss.
|
If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
|
|
|
|
bitplane
|
|
September 13, 2011, 03:29:58 AM |
|
No chance. It costs a bloody fortune to run a banking network in the first place, chrunching cryptographic hashes and solving problems that only exist in a p2p network would be a huge waste of money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Serith (OP)
|
|
September 13, 2011, 03:38:38 AM |
|
No chance. It costs a bloody fortune to run a banking network in the first place, chrunching cryptographic hashes and solving problems that only exist in a p2p network would be a huge waste of money.
If only that was the case, but the problem with merged mining is that it costs nothing to get same mining power as bitcoin network has. |
|
|
|
|
|
bitplane
|
|
September 13, 2011, 03:50:41 AM |
|
If only that was the case, but the problem with merged mining is that it costs nothing to get same mining power as bitcoin network has.
But why would they need/want to mine or use a block chain? Their money is stored in ledgers that are protected by anti-fraud systems and regulations, they have the ability to reverse transactions and so on. I can't see any benefit of using such a system in a centralized environment, unless it was significantly cheaper than using the global banking system, which I doubt it would be. |
|
|
|
|
|
Serith (OP)
|
|
September 13, 2011, 04:07:12 AM |
|
If only that was the case, but the problem with merged mining is that it costs nothing to get same mining power as bitcoin network has.
But why would they need/want to mine or use a block chain? Their money is stored in ledgers that are protected by anti-fraud systems and regulations, they have the ability to reverse transactions and so on. I can't see any benefit of using such a system in a centralized environment, unless it was significantly cheaper than using the global banking system, which I doubt it would be. If they see that Bitcoin pose even a small threat, they can decide to profit from it instead of fighting it. In any case even if the whole idea of crypto currency would collapse a company that utilize merged mining won't loose much. |
|
|
|
|
|
Serith (OP)
|
|
September 13, 2011, 04:11:24 AM |
|
I think a more appropriate question might be what will kill crypto-currency first, government tax attorneys or big business. Why would anyone want it to become mainstream? Don't you like what it is today? I will keep enjoying it for what it is now as long as it lasts. I love money without any fee. I live in a badly overtaxed state so others might not appreciate that aspect as much as I do.
I am very much against the possibility where a company like Visa has it's own private blockchain used by millions of people to make every day transactions. |
|
|
|
|
|
BkkCoins
|
|
September 13, 2011, 04:16:07 AM |
|
It makes no sense at all for a centralized corporation to want to use a decentralized transaction ledger. Now if you asked about multiple organizations combining efforts to create an allied system there may be some benefits in sharing costs without giving up trust over control.
|
|
|
|
|
Serith (OP)
|
|
September 13, 2011, 04:47:50 AM |
|
It makes no sense at all for a centralized corporation to want to use a decentralized transaction ledger. Now if you asked about multiple organizations combining efforts to create an allied system there may be some benefits in sharing costs without giving up trust over control.
We have a dozen clones of Bitcoin already, some of them easily identifiable as scam, others just favorable to people controlling it. There is nothing that will stop a company with serious income, marketing department and customer base to do the same, and merged mining will be used as a tool. |
|
|
|
|
|
logansryche
|
|
September 13, 2011, 05:11:00 AM |
|
Disagree. The likes of Paypal would never try anything new that wasn't a sure fire sound thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
