Topic: [2019-03-21] Blockchains Have Merit, But Cryptocurrencies Won’t Take Over (Read 367 times)
March 25, 2019, 01:54:36 PM
so you develop applications for Bitcoin, but don't want to use, and think it has no future. ok
March 25, 2019, 12:26:45 PM
Bitcoin will never make it but the technology behind it will, eventually.
Bitcoin is the most well developed cryptocurrency. It's posible that someone may in future produce a better design, but no-one's doing it now.
Also, your scenrio is biased: yes, if you use that specific app, a $60,000 dollar price would make it unusable. So just use a payments channel based app, fees are then flexible enough ($60,000 BTC price is a great problem to have, isn't it?)
It was just an example, most people want their money to be easy and simple, and free. Don't get me wrong I've been following Bitcoin since it first appeared and have put time and money into developing projects around it. The issue is that even as someone who knows how it works and develops applications for it, I have no real interest in using it as a financial instrument. I considered investing 3 years ago, and I'd have made about £100,000 if I had, but the volitility was the big decider. I could have lost everything I put into it just as easily as making enough to buy a farm. Bitcoin is it's own currency and until it's possible to "piggyback" fiat on the network, it will likely remain a development tool and investment platform.
March 24, 2019, 08:11:43 PM
@Carlton Banks. Agreed! It makes you question the system. Reports would say that the global economy is growing, however, the divide between the rich and the poor has never been larger. Especially in 3rd world countries.
March 24, 2019, 12:40:00 PM
Bitcoin will never make it but the technology behind it will, eventually.
Bitcoin is the most well developed cryptocurrency. It's posible that someone may in future produce a better design, but no-one's doing it now.
Also, your scenrio is biased: yes, if you use that specific app, a $60,000 dollar price would make it unusable. So just use a payments channel based app, fees are then flexible enough ($60,000 BTC price is a great problem to have, isn't it?)
- Trade involving Bitcoin is increasing; trade involving fiat is declining (or at best static)
- The number of people using Bitcoin to account for their wealth is increasing; price inflation in fiat denominated goods/services/assets implies that using fiat to account for wealth is in decline
What makes you say that? The global economy grows with every year, there's no way that the trade involving fiat is static or declining, that only happens during recession years.
Officially stated growth isn't outpacing inflation. That means de facto low or no growth in trade. And the actual growth rate might be lower than the official published figures. They're unlikely to be lower.
March 24, 2019, 11:36:32 AM
Its what I just paid on a testnet transaction using the core devleopers android app, I made nothing up, just used the recommended fee. Yes the fee can be less, but realistically a low or zero fee transaction is unlikely to be included in a block if the network is busy.
Testnet transactions are irrelevant, testnet like its name suggest is meant for testing. Recommended fees are also irrelevant, because most/all wallets are notoriously bad at "recommending" fees. If you want to know the real fees, look at sites like https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h , they show the current stats. At this moment, even 1 satoshi/byte fees are easily getting included in blocks. For now on-chain Bitcoin transactions are very cheap.
Testnet wallet uses the same GBP/BTC conversion rates as the mainnet wallet. Most people can't be arsed to check what the cost of a transaction will be when its easier, faster and free just to use a bank. Seems most people these days don't have the time of day to use punctuation, so expecting them to faff about checking what fee they should pay to send money for that mcdonalds they owe for is a big ask
As said, Bitcoin will never be the payment system of the future, the blockchain will but nothing that exists today.
Also, it's the Bitcoin wallet developers app I meant. I can't be arsed keeping track of who develops what, I gave up on Bitcoin a few years back.
March 24, 2019, 11:29:04 AM
Its what I just paid on a testnet transaction using the core devleopers android app, I made nothing up, just used the recommended fee. Yes the fee can be less, but realistically a low or zero fee transaction is unlikely to be included in a block if the network is busy.
Testnet transactions are irrelevant, testnet like its name suggest is meant for testing. Recommended fees are also irrelevant, because most/all wallets are notoriously bad at "recommending" fees. If you want to know the real fees, look at sites like https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h , they show the current stats. At this moment, even 1 satoshi/byte fees are easily getting included in blocks. For now on-chain Bitcoin transactions are very cheap.
Also, there's no such thing as "core developer's android app".
March 24, 2019, 11:19:17 AM
A £1.50 transaction (on testnet at least) ends up over £2 with network fees.
Fees are not fixed, you just made all that up.
Minimum fees are less than half of $0.01. On Lightning, they're 10,000 times less than that.
Its what I just paid on a testnet transaction using the core devleopers android app, I made nothing up, just used the recommended fee. Yes the fee can be less, but realistically a low or zero fee transaction is unlikely to be included in a block if the network is busy. This was my point, so far it is just about making money for the miners and investors. What about if the price hits 60k? TX fees will be 20X what they are now.
Also I said about crypto being a payment system for the masses, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin will never make it but the technology behind it will, eventually.
March 24, 2019, 10:52:12 AM
- Trade involving Bitcoin is increasing; trade involving fiat is declining (or at best static)
- The number of people using Bitcoin to account for their wealth is increasing; price inflation in fiat denominated goods/services/assets implies that using fiat to account for wealth is in decline
What makes you say that? The global economy grows with every year, there's no way that the trade involving fiat is static or declining, that only happens during recession years. While no one can predict the future of economy for sure, there's no reason to legitimately think that fiat economy is declining. Bitcoin trade is still so tiny when compared to fiat, the growth rate needs to become exponential in order for Bitcoin to get some significance.
March 23, 2019, 10:36:21 PM
As far as I know the IMF and the World bank have a strict loan structure that only a few countries capable can even lend in them. That is why most under developed countries tend to borrow money from other countries. That is why we are seeing China as the number one suspect for doing "debt traps" in which the Chinese government knows that this under developed countries don't have the ability to pay that their main goal really is for them taking over their assets. So far the countries who fell victim recently are Uganda and Zambia.
However, America also has borrowed money in the trillions from China. Will China also own and takeover America's assets?
I reckon they might have problems collecting for payment hehehe.
I reckon China would need to be prepared for an attack from the United States military if they were planning something like that hehehe.
March 23, 2019, 05:29:12 PM
Cryptocurrencies as they are won't work in the real world, especially with the focus on investment and earning rather than making a usable transaction system. A £1.50 transaction (on testnet at least) ends up over £2 with network fees. The fees are fine if it's thousands but even then, it's free with the banking system. I can send a penny or £50,000 and neither cost me anything. Where is the incentive to use bitcoin when it costs more, takes longer to confirm payments, and if I snap another phone in half I've lost everything? Obviously if I actually used bitcoin then I'd have backups and multiple devices, but for most people that's just extra work when the system they know and use has none of these issues.
If crypto is going to become a viable transaction system for the masses, it needs to change and not be it's own "currency" that needs exchanging with massive price volitility.
If crypto is going to become a viable transaction system for the masses, it needs to change and not be it's own "currency" that needs exchanging with massive price volitility.
It's clear that you aren't actually using Bitcoin on a daily basis. I do almost on a daily basis, and can tell you right now that I haven't paid more than $0.10 in fees for over a year, and that's me being generous. Me being less generous means fees of up to $0.05 and they almost always confirm by the first next block.
Where people tend to go wrong is that they try to consolidate too many inputs at once but not include a fee to match the byte size of the transaction. Altcoins might not charge you anything for such transactions because barely anyone uses them, but Bitcoin's block space isn't freely available like that.
As for the longer to confirm part, transactions through financial institutions never fully confirm. Usually there is a 180-360 day time frame where transactions can be reversed from the client side, but the institution can do so even 5-10 years later.
March 23, 2019, 02:49:47 PM
A £1.50 transaction (on testnet at least) ends up over £2 with network fees.
Fees are not fixed, you just made all that up.
Minimum fees are less than half of $0.01. On Lightning, they're 10,000 times less than that.
The fees are fine if it's thousands but even then, it's free with the banking system. I can send a penny or £50,000 and neither cost me anything. Where is the incentive to use bitcoin when it costs more, takes longer to confirm payments, and if I snap another phone in half I've lost everything? Obviously if I actually used bitcoin then I'd have backups and multiple devices, but for most people that's just extra work when the system they know and use has none of these issues.
If crypto is going to become a viable transaction system for the masses, it needs to change and not be it's own "currency" that needs exchanging with massive price volitility.
If crypto is going to become a viable transaction system for the masses, it needs to change and not be it's own "currency" that needs exchanging with massive price volitility.
It isn't pitched as a viable transaction system for the masses, it's pitched as a viable transaction system for people who don't want their money to be controlled or inflated. Banking system can't compete with Bitcoin version 0.1.0 when it comes to control and inflation, let alone today's Bitcoin
March 23, 2019, 01:28:41 PM
Cryptocurrencies as they are won't work in the real world, especially with the focus on investment and earning rather than making a usable transaction system. A £1.50 transaction (on testnet at least) ends up over £2 with network fees. The fees are fine if it's thousands but even then, it's free with the banking system. I can send a penny or £50,000 and neither cost me anything. Where is the incentive to use bitcoin when it costs more, takes longer to confirm payments, and if I snap another phone in half I've lost everything? Obviously if I actually used bitcoin then I'd have backups and multiple devices, but for most people that's just extra work when the system they know and use has none of these issues.
If crypto is going to become a viable transaction system for the masses, it needs to change and not be it's own "currency" that needs exchanging with massive price volitility.
If crypto is going to become a viable transaction system for the masses, it needs to change and not be it's own "currency" that needs exchanging with massive price volitility.
March 23, 2019, 12:19:15 PM
As far as I know the IMF and the World bank have a strict loan structure that only a few countries capable can even lend in them. That is why most under developed countries tend to borrow money from other countries. That is why we are seeing China as the number one suspect for doing "debt traps" in which the Chinese government knows that this under developed countries don't have the ability to pay that their main goal really is for them taking over their assets. So far the countries who fell victim recently are Uganda and Zambia.
However, America also has borrowed money in the trillions from China. Will China also own and takeover America's assets?
I reckon they might have problems collecting for payment hehehe.
March 23, 2019, 08:56:28 AM
That made sense as a prudent statement in 2008 (when Satoshi said it), I'm not convinced it makes sense now. The tech has demonstrated how resilient it is, and how attractive that is. It's one big positive feedback loop, and it's difficult to see how that can be disrupted now.
Agreed. It makes no sense anymore. The very fact that institutions are building the infrastructure around it just shows how much confidence there is in Bitcoin. They wouldn't do it if it was totally useless/worthless.It wouldn't even surprise me if quite some institutions low-key went into fomo mode back in 2017 because their clients were begging for it. In order to avoid similar situations, they'll act as exchange themselves eventually.
In terms of the fundamentals, LN growing is super bullish, especially when Square as first mayor entity utilizes it to improve their platform and offer people the speed and convenience they are asking for.
Do you have an idea when we can expect Scnorr to finally make it into an official client release?
March 22, 2019, 09:15:57 AM
So 'blockchain' not Bitcoin once more.
I don't see how a supposedly educated person working in finance can believe a 'file storage' system that requires the cooperation of thousands of validators can possibly operate without the incentive for them to put the work and resources in to validate, store and maintain that info.
How can you go through life without making the most simplistic of links?
I don't see how a supposedly educated person working in finance can believe a 'file storage' system that requires the cooperation of thousands of validators can possibly operate without the incentive for them to put the work and resources in to validate, store and maintain that info.
How can you go through life without making the most simplistic of links?
March 22, 2019, 09:10:26 AM
However, the International Monetary Fund officials are not on the same page in regards to the general excitement about this new budding concept of money. According to IMF economist Antoine Bouveret and assistant director Vikram Haksar, virtual coins do not fulfill basic functions of money, such as being a store of value, means of exchange, and unit of account.[/i]
Let them believe what they want. As long as they allow crypto interact with the financial world they have the monopoly on, it's a good start. As long as crypto have no merit, not good, and whatever they think, it's not seen as a threat. Perfect.
We need them allow crypto develop. And that can happen easier if there are less enemies.
How long it took to evolve from gold coins to printed bills? Where they accepted happily by everybody from start? Bitcoin will grow more and at some point it'll take its deserved place. But we need (much) more patience.
March 22, 2019, 09:03:48 AM
bitcoin still has a very binary future---it's probably going to be worth quite a lot (millions of $$) if mass adoption happens, or otherwise very very little (~$0)
That made sense as a prudent statement in 2008 (when Satoshi said it), I'm not convinced it makes sense now. The tech has demonstrated how resilient it is, and how attractive that is. It's one big positive feedback loop, and it's difficult to see how that can be disrupted now.
Agreed. It's still an experiment for me, but the likelihood of it becoming worth quite a lot more than it is today has to be much, much higher than it becoming worth very little, at least in the foreseeable timeframe where a generation or two after me are still alive and using it.
Quote
According to IMF economist Antoine Bouveret and assistant director Vikram Haksar, virtual coins do not fulfill basic functions of money, such as being a store of value, means of exchange, and unit of account.
give it 10-20 more years.
No need. Bitcoin is objectively storing value, being exchanged in trade, and used as a unit of account today.
It's unstable in all those respects. All currencies are unstable in all those respects.
And we can point to objective users (users, merchants, who apart from transacting in Bitcoin, otherwise have no interest in its development) who are using Bitcoin exactly for all the above, except maybe unit of account. I've got clients already happy to pay in Bitcoin, but it's not a big deal for them. It's just adding another method of payment in their eyes.
March 21, 2019, 11:22:14 PM
I don't know how being a substitute of money is considered as a only mean success of Bitcoin by many. I believe Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies as a whole have much more advantages than the present form of money. We can't speculate money but we can speculate on Bitcoin's value. So it is wrong to put both money and cryptos in same bag as most of the governments and authorities are doing. It shows they aren't fully aware of what Blockchain provides. Instead of just being token serving basic features of money, cryptocurrencies provide much more with the features like Proof of Work, Public Ledger, transparency, etc.
March 21, 2019, 10:34:46 PM
Bitcoin does not need to completely dominate the world or be used by global institutions to be successful in its purpose. These institutions are still commenting, in fear, about the possibility of paper money being totally replaced by virtual money. This has already occurred. And paper money will soon have no use. Everything will be virtual, with life only on the internet.
The discussion will take place more on the control in the issuance and audit of the national money. And then cryptocurrencies may prove to be an excellent alternative.
The discussion will take place more on the control in the issuance and audit of the national money. And then cryptocurrencies may prove to be an excellent alternative.
March 21, 2019, 08:42:02 PM
As far as I know the IMF and the World bank have a strict loan structure that only a few countries capable can even lend in them. That is why most under developed countries tend to borrow money from other countries. That is why we are seeing China as the number one suspect for doing "debt traps" in which the Chinese government knows that this under developed countries don't have the ability to pay that their main goal really is for them taking over their assets. So far the countries who fell victim recently are Uganda and Zambia.
However, America also has borrowed money in the trillions from China. Will China also own and takeover America's assets?
I reckon they might have problems collecting for payment hehehe.
Jump to: