first 25 minutes

[bracek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY

he no like bitcoin,
at least he talks like he doesn't

I can't tell how good his arguments are

[1713554970]

1713554970

[herzmeister]

yap, I remember that one, he mainly criticizes Scalability.

He reuses slides from Dan Kaminsky, this thread has some answers and reactions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34597.0

Still I believe there is some truth that Bitcoin is not as scalable and decentralizable as it could/should be.

[Vandroiy]

Bitcoin is neither suitable nor necessary for small transactions. It can serve as a backing store and fallback if things go wrong in finances, but you don't want the invoice for every single telephone call, or worse, MB of traffic etc. paid in a whole Bitcoin transaction.

And this is not a big problem. The issues of state-controlled financial systems Bitcoin addresses don't happen on microscopic sums. Just don't be hedgehogs, trying to throw the holy block chain at every single problem out there; it will coexist with other systems just like it has always been.

[Andrew Vorobyov]

Fees will go up if micro payments will come into the play... equilibrium will be found... fees influence transactions size and vice versa.

[adamstgBit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY

he no like bitcoin,
at least he talks like he doesn't

I can't tell how good his arguments are

He provided an objective view of the over all project. you have to keep in mind bitcoin is new, so its very easy for anyone to point the things that "wrong" with it, because its true their are things wrong with it, but the protocol is and always has been secure no one can say otherwise. Who knows if smart people keep working on bitcoin it could become better? 

I like when he said something like "bitcoin looks good, because everything else it total SHIT". and its true bitcoin is the first digital cash with the right fundamentals.

[DiThi]

As he says, we will have "supernodes" BUT we won't need to trust them individually as we need to trust banks. Those "supernodes" will be the miners, and probably most of the information could be prunned from the merkle tree. If something like this gets implemented in the future, we just need to trust in that more than 50% of mining power is non-malicious in order to have a thin client that doesn't rely in any particular third party.

Another thing I didn't mention here: If we reach 1/6 of the number of transactions of visa, fees will be higher than block reward (assuming a value similar to our current 0.0005 fee and 50 btc reward)

[FreeMoney]

Guy isn't trying to figure the answers to his issues at all.

Connect to all nodes? I'll just send the tx out of band to someone willing to relay it for me.

Block chain too long for everyone to hold? Just request the parts you need from someone who has it. If it's so super big maybe you'll have to pay a little bit eventually, but even that seems extreme. Does he know about headers?

[BkkCoins]

Another thing I didn't mention here: If we reach 1/6 of the number of transactions of visa, fees will be higher than block reward (assuming a value similar to our current 0.0005 fee and 50 btc reward)

I think you could even relax these numbers. It's taken decades for visa to get to it's trx level. You can certainly expect Bitcoin won't get even close before it's reward drops to 25 btc. And I think a 0.001 fee is trivial enough (at today's price) that compensating miners slightly higher fees once the lower reward level occurs may be adequate. Using those figures, 1/6th -> 1/12th -> 1/24th volume of visa. Of course, such a fee would be determined by the market anyway, dependent on whether the reward is sufficient to mine, and counterbalanced by difficulty level. But I could see the network being functional with that fee level and if the burden of a larger blockchain is significant it may be required.

I like your proposal - as significantly reduced blockchain overhead should mean reduced fees overall and a more resilient miner network. One of the significant features of Bitcoin is that the mining, and therefor fees, is market driven and not set by a central monopoly.

[zefir]

yap, I remember that one, he mainly criticizes Scalability.

He reuses slides from Dan Kaminsky, this thread has some answers and reactions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34597.0

Still I believe there is some truth that Bitcoin is not as scalable and decentralizable as it could/should be.

You're sure the guy talking was reusing Dan Kaminsky's slides, or he was Dan itself?

[PrintCoins]

Fees will go up if micro payments will come into the play... equilibrium will be found... fees influence transactions size and vice versa.

Micropayments are great. You get more of them in, you get more profit on your block.

The cost to write to the block is trival, and if you ignore a transaction because the fee is too little (but worth more then the cost of adding to the block) then you leave money on the table.

Remember the cost to mine the block is sunk cost at the time of transaction writing, so it is irrelevant regarding the fee you are willing to accept to write a transaction.

Fees will stay low unless there is collective action (cartel) to prevent them from being low. Then someone will come along outside of the cartel and sweep in all of the transactions that have been sitting around with little fees and profit majorly from it.

Mining power will decline (in investment & energy use) to match the payout + total fees per block. They are all slaves to a race to the bottom unless individuals (such as pools) use their power to force fees higher. Transactions that aren't urgent will always be able to use low fees and just wait around for someone to scoop them all up.

[FreeMoney]

yap, I remember that one, he mainly criticizes Scalability.

He reuses slides from Dan Kaminsky, this thread has some answers and reactions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34597.0

Still I believe there is some truth that Bitcoin is not as scalable and decentralizable as it could/should be.

You're sure the guy talking was reusing Dan Kaminsky's slides, or he was Dan itself?

Maybe he stole dan's talk, name, height, voice and face. In the future that'll be so easy you'll need to sign your shit so people won't believe the impostors.

[herzmeister]

lolz, someone must've h4x0r3d teh blockchain in my brain