Please answer 3 technical questions

[Eamorr]

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

The processing power required to mine a block is completely unrelated to the number of transactions included in that block. Mining a block with 5 transactions will cost just as much (or as little) as mining one with 10,000 transactions.

We've ascertained that. The block chain size still needs a band-aid.

The consumer and the retailer don't care about the technical nuance you've described (that a transaction is separate to a confirmation).

If that's true, no retailer would ever accept credit cards, as they effectively have a confirmation time of 6+ months.

If you still think that's a technical nuance, let me spell it out for you:

		Credit card		Bitcoin
Transaction time1		5-10 sec		1-2 sec
Confirmation time2		3-12 months		10 minutes

1 = the time it takes to make a payment
2 = the time it takes for a payment to become irreversible

Comparing apples with oranges.

Were you sick on the day the teacher was explaining algebra?

3. Is centralization of the network inevitable?

No. P2P mining.

Lol. In this case, will the electricity usage be even more obscene?

[1714534489]

1714534489

[Kazimir]

We've ascertained that. The block chain size still needs a band-aid.

Uhm, why exactly?

You seem to think are are all kinds of problems, shortcomings or limitations with Bitcoin, that aren't really there.

Comparing apples with oranges.

No, comparing credit card payments (claiming a transactions takes only seconds) to the 10 minute confirmation time of Bitcoin, is comparing apples with oranges.

Bitcoin is faster in terms of sending money around, and WAY faster in terms of transactions becoming irreversible.

Were you sick on the day the teacher was explaining algebra?

That's funny, with me actually being an algebra teacher.

Lol. In this case, will the electricity usage be even more obscene?

Obscene, you say? (and why the hell it would be "even more" obscene with P2P mining is completely beyond me)

Anyway:





Source: http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-conclusions-costs-bitcoin/

Your point again?

[Eamorr]

What a load of bollox.

Bitcoin is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the global economy.

If 10bn people were doing 10 transactions a day, at the rate Bitcoin is going, each village on the planet would need it's own power station.

You are a retard. No amount of large letter assertions will change this.

I wish you all the best with your business.

[Kazimir]

What a load of bollox.

Bitcoin is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the global economy.

If 10bn people were doing 10 transactions a day, at the rate Bitcoin is going, each village on the planet would need it's own power station.

10bn people doing 10 transactions a day can be processed with EXACTLY the same amount of miners as today.

You still don't seem to understand this, so I'll say it again: the processing power required to mine a block is completely unrelated to the number of transactions included in that block. Mining a block with 5 transactions will cost just as much (or as little) as mining one with 10,000 transactions.

You are a retard. No amount of large letter assertions will change this.

Ah, the infamous ad hominem, if every other (lack of) argument failed.

I wish you all the best with your business.

Bitcoin is not a business for me. More like a fascination and appreciation of how a smart idea and ingenious invention has the potential to make a difference, and take away some power of the establishment. Just like the upcoming of the internet did.

[Eamorr]

What a load of bollox.

Bitcoin is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the global economy.

If 10bn people were doing 10 transactions a day, at the rate Bitcoin is going, each village on the planet would need it's own power station.

10bn people doing 10 transactions a day can be processed with EXACTLY the same amount of miners as today.

You still don't seem to understand this, so I'll say it again: the processing power required to mine a block is completely unrelated to the number of transactions included in that block. Mining a block with 5 transactions will cost just as much (or as little) as mining one with 10,000 transactions.

You are a retard. No amount of large letter assertions will change this.

Factually incorrect. What about the block size? How to change that? Bitcoin2.0? Why bother? There are other cryptos that have addressed all these issues.

An announcement that everyone needs to now install Bitcoin 2.0 would crash the market to 0 overnight.

Ah, the infamous ad hominem, if every other (lack of) argument failed.

I already provided you with several central refutations. You are a Bitcoin zealot and there's no talking to you.

I wish you all the best with your business.

Bitcoin is not a business for me. More like a fascination and appreciation of how a smart idea and ingenious invention has the potential to make a difference, and take away some power of the establishment. Just like the upcoming of the internet did.

Best of luck with the trainspotting. There are serious folks out there who have invested huge personal energy, time and money in better alternatives. People who envisage a brighter future for humanity - there's serious work to do.

Folks like you want to strap a jet engine onto a steam engine.

[Kazimir]

Factually incorrect. What about the block size? How to change that?

Plenty of options currently being discussed. Increasing block frequency, increasing max block size over time, pruning block chain at certain intervals, side chains, etc. Look at Gavin Andresen's recent posts on this. Scalability is not an issue.

An announcement that everyone needs to now install Bitcoin 2.0 would crash the market to 0 overnight.

Bitcoin isn't even 1.0 yet. Changes like this can be discussed by developers and the community, and once the majority agrees, these can simply get integrated in the current Bitcoin clients to become effective at a conveniently distant point in the future. No need for announcements that "everyone needs to upgarde now" or whatever.

I already provided you with several central refutations.

No, you made some statements or assumptions that were simply incorrect, and now you try and come up with one excuse after the other for not properly understanding of how Bitcoin actually works.

You are a Bitcoin zealot and there's no talking to you.

OK, then don't.

Best of luck with the trainspotting. There are serious folks out there who have invested huge personal energy, time and money in better alternatives. People who envisage a brighter future for humanity - there's serious work to do.

Great, I'm all pro diversity! I suggest you move to their forums and start buggering them, if you obviously have no faith in Bitcoin whatsoever. Healthy competition is only good, may the best alternative win.

[Eamorr]

Factually incorrect. What about the block size? How to change that?

Plenty of options currently being discussed. Increasing block frequency, increasing max block size over time, pruning block chain at certain intervals, side chains, etc. Look at Gavin Andresen's recent posts on this. Scalability is not an issue.

An announcement that everyone needs to now install Bitcoin 2.0 would crash the market to 0 overnight.

Bitcoin isn't even 1.0 yet. Changes like this can be discussed by developers and the community, and once the majority agrees, these can simply get integrated in the current Bitcoin clients to become effective at a conveniently distant point in the future. No need for announcements that "everyone needs to upgarde now" or whatever.

I already provided you with several central refutations.

No, you made some statements or assumptions that were simply incorrect, and now you try and come up with one excuse after the other for not properly understanding of how Bitcoin actually works.

You are a Bitcoin zealot and there's no talking to you.

OK, then don't.

Best of luck with the trainspotting. There are serious folks out there who have invested huge personal energy, time and money in better alternatives. People who envisage a brighter future for humanity - there's serious work to do.

Great, I'm all pro diversity! I suggest you move to their forums and start buggering them, if you obviously have no faith in Bitcoin whatsoever. Healthy competition is only good, may the best alternative win.

Sigh. That's your problem right there. Bitcoin is a religion to you.

[Kazimir]

Sigh. That's your problem right there. Bitcoin is a religion to you.

Shit, you got me. Yes, I'm not into Bitcoin for technical reasons or its ingenious design, or the new possibilities this technology offers, or because it's all mathematically sound, or for the fact that it replaces trust in people or established powers with trust in open source, transparent cryptography, nahh... I'm all into it because I just have faith.

You win, sir. This also makes all your previous statements true. Enjoy your victory!

[Eamorr]

Sigh. That's your problem right there. Bitcoin is a religion to you.

Shit, you got me. Yes, I'm not into Bitcoin for technical reasons or its ingenious design, or the new possibilities this technology offers, or because it's all mathematically sound, or for the fact that it replaces trust in people or established powers with trust in open source, transparent cryptography, nahh... I'm all into it because I just have faith.

You win, sir. This also makes all your previous statements true. Enjoy your victory!

You'll find you'd actually agree with me (if you weren't so blinded by your religion).

The idea and theory of cyptocurrency is sound.

It's implementation (via Bitcoin) is not.

[Kazimir]

It's implementation (via Bitcoin) is not.

Care to elaborate? I'm always interested in good arguments for or against Bitcoin or alternatives. But the things you mentioned in your OP are simply not actual problems.

As for the transaction time vs confirmation time: let me illustrate this by the fact that I pay for coffee, dinner, groceries, and many other products and services with Bitcoin on a daily basis. I'm not talking about webshops or virtual online business, but typical point-of-sale situations. It works. 100% of the time. I pay in literally one second, and obviously I never EVER have to wait for the confirmation time.

I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect, or the End To All Problems, or even near finished (strictly speaking it's still in development phase). But as a means to pay fast, efficiently, secure, both online AND offline, it already does a damn fine job.

[Eamorr]

It's implementation (via Bitcoin) is not.

Care to elaborate? I'm always interested in good arguments for or against Bitcoin or alternatives. But the things you mentioned in your OP are simply not actual problems.

As for the transaction time vs confirmation time: let me illustrate this by the fact that I pay for coffee, dinner, groceries, and many other products and services with Bitcoin on a daily basis. I'm not talking about webshops or virtual online business, but typical point-of-sale situations. It works. 100% of the time. I pay in literally one second, and obviously I never EVER have to wait for the confirmation time.

I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect, or the End To All Problems, or even near finished (strictly speaking it's still in development phase). But as a means to pay fast, efficiently, secure, both online AND offline, it already does a damn fine job.

10bn people doing 10 transactions a day? Yeah right...

[jonald_fyookball]

What a load of bollox.

Bitcoin is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the global economy.

If 10bn people were doing 10 transactions a day, at the rate Bitcoin is going, each village on the planet would need it's own power station.

10bn people doing 10 transactions a day can be processed with EXACTLY the same amount of miners as today.

You still don't seem to understand this, so I'll say it again: the processing power required to mine a block is completely unrelated to the number of transactions included in that block. Mining a block with 5 transactions will cost just as much (or as little) as mining one with 10,000 transactions.

You are a retard. No amount of large letter assertions will change this.

Factually incorrect. What about the block size? How to change that? Bitcoin2.0? Why bother? There are other cryptos that have addressed all these issues.
 

Ignoratio elenchi.

Kazimir already explained the blocksize is
irrelevant to the energy usage.

The fact that the blocksize is limited
is a wholly separate issue; one that
is currently being debated now as
to the best approach to address it.

If you want to use other cryptos,
go for it.  No one is stopping you.

[Kazimir]

10bn people doing 10 transactions a day? Yeah right...

You still didn't make an argument why this wouldn't be perfectly possible.

The mining performance or energy usage is completely unrelated to number of transactions.
And as for block size: there are tons of options currently being discussed, just a matter of getting consensus of what's the best way to go. There is NO fundamental issue or problem here, Bitcoin is extremely scalable.

You sound like someone in the late 90s saying: this 'internet' thing may seem nice for electronic communication, like some emails and text websites, but downloading complete movies, or even streaming them at multiple megabytes per second in ordinary households? "Yeah right..."

[Eamorr]

10bn people doing 10 transactions a day? Yeah right...

You still didn't make an argument why this wouldn't be perfectly possible.

The mining performance or energy usage is completely unrelated to number of transactions.
And as for block size: there are tons of options currently being discussed, just a matter of getting consensus of what's the best way to go. There is NO fundamental issue or problem here, Bitcoin is extremely scalable.

You sound like someone in the late 90s saying: this 'internet' thing may seem nice for electronic communication, like some emails and text websites, but downloading complete movies, or even streaming them at multiple megabytes per second in ordinary households? "Yeah right..."

The internet of today isn't built with 28k modems.

The only vision of the future that Bitcoin has is a 36k modem.

[Kazimir]

The internet of today isn't built with 28k modems.

The only vision of the future that Bitcoin has is a 36k modem.

You seem to be unaware of many new developments, improvements, and scalability features already being discussed and planned.

Nobody who's serious about Bitcoin thinks we'll be using (the equivalent of) 36k modems.

[DumbFruit]

The idea and theory of cyptocurrency is sound.

It's implementation (via Bitcoin) is not.

Could you share with us the system that achieves decentralized consensus while having the capability of processing 100 billion transactions per day?

[Eamorr]

The idea and theory of cyptocurrency is sound.

It's implementation (via Bitcoin) is not.

Could you share with us the system that achieves decentralized consensus while having the capability of processing 100 billion transactions per day?

So you admit that Bitcoin can't do it?

100 billion transactions per day is roughly 1 million transactions per second. Not an unachievable number.

That's what we need to be aiming for.

Strapping a jet to a steam engine is not the solution.

[jonald_fyookball]

The idea and theory of cyptocurrency is sound.

It's implementation (via Bitcoin) is not.

Could you share with us the system that achieves decentralized consensus while having the capability of processing 100 billion transactions per day?

So you admit that Bitcoin can't do it?

100 billion transactions per day is roughly 1 million transactions per second. Not an unachievable number.

That's what we need to be aiming for.

Strapping a jet to a steam engine is not the solution.

yawn.  many avenues for scalability but you are only interested in arguing.  have fun.

[Kazimir]

So you admit that Bitcoin can't do it?

You're avoiding the question.

[Kazimir]

100 billion transactions per day is roughly 1 million transactions per second. Not an unachievable number.

That's what we need to be aiming for.

Strapping a jet to a steam engine is not the solution.

Developments like Factom however...

1 million transactions per second, using the Bitcoin blockchain, there you go.