Topic: Bitcoin 2013: The Future of Payments - San Jose, CA - May 17-19, 2013 - page 2. (Read 17417 times)

Thank you!  


I doubt it. Rather, even if/when the software-coded blocksize limit is removed, it is still in the miner's best interest to keep a block size limit in place. It would help keep the transaction fees up, as opposed to everyone just sending everything for free all the time, and it would allow them to continue earning enough to cover storage costs. So, I guess as with mining, there will eventually be a free market competition for who can store and transmit the blockchain most efficiently while getting the maximum amount of fees out of it. So, just as mining costs tend to approach mining profits, storage expenses, I.e. blockchain growth, will tend to approach storage revenues. Thought I think Seth is right in that it will likely lag behind tech quite a bit. I mean, the full blockchain is 8 gigs, while you can buy 1,000 gigs for under $100 now.

If you're thinking what I think you're thinking, there's a Rica and and Rico 

Hey Seth! Thanks for stopping by the expert's table. I definitely remember your name, cause it has "otter" in it, and those things are frikin cute!  
Also, thanks for teaching me a bit about geography, in that there are two Rica's in the Caribbean. Still a bit embarrassed about that *o.o*

Unless I am mistaken, removing the blocksize limit will still result in a linear blockchain growth once bitcoin adoption levels off.  The exponential growth of storage capacity and internet speed will always pass it.  Great to meet you at the conference!

That does not hold true once the blocksize limit is removed, which will happen eventually.

There was a recent article in Bitcoin Magazine that analysed the blockchain size, but most of their articles are not available online. The main point is that the blockchain size will increase linearly, while the capacity of hard drives and internet speed increases exponentially (although right now the blockchain appears to increase faster because the block size limit hasn't been hit yet). The article looked at some worst case scenarios, and even using really conservative estimates, 20 years from now people will easily be able to store the whole blockchain on their phone and download the whole thing in a few hours.

Here http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html

ya that was a good plan as well.  So many smart, interesting people with some really terrific projects and idea.

I just skipped almost all the talks and talked to as many people as I could.  I figured I will always be able to watch recordings later.

And then there where Lightening sessions going on as well. 

When one of the session got boring I cut out an hit up a lighting session on statistical analysis if btc price sings and that was on of the better sessions I attended and it was not even on my radar.

No kidding! I would've gone to just about everything if I could've. On one of the panels I was at, Peter noted that they're thinking the next one will be a couple days longer, so hopefully the schedule won't be so tight.

Of course if bandwidth and storage cannot scale, that is likely to be the case I guess. But that being said, only 6 datacenters storing the entire blockchain might not be a real problem as long as all full nodes continue to run based on snapshots of the blockchain at a given date to reduce its size. Though I don't know all details surrounding this question, and I couldn't go at the conference this year (sadly!).

I am looking at the rate during the conference and $116.67 per BTC seems fair considering it needs to be set once really.
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg10zig6-hourzczsg2013-05-16zeg2013-05-17ztgSzm1g10zm2g25
As it was a Bitcoin conference perhaps it can be argued the $350 should have been $345 or $340 depending on the rate. The difference is really only the price of a coffee and a sandwich!  

It is inexcusable to create an incentive to pay with a credit card at a bitcoin conference.  They could easily have changed the rate to 2.9 or 2.8 bitcoins depending on the current exchange rate.

You might have noticed that the BTC rate has fluctuated a lot lately, and keeping things simple means whole numbers on admission prices. $350/3 or $116.67 is a pretty reasonable approximation of the average value of one BTC in the week up to and including the conference.  

I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that it was cheaper to buy admission with a credit card at the door.  I'm sure the organizers of the NY and Vienna bitcoin conferences will not have such a retarded system in place.

Bitcoin price:  3btc
Credit Card price:  $350

Peter Vessenes is clearly incompetent.  Mtgox gets booted out of the conference because of his stupid lawsuit, and then it's more expensive to pay admission with bitcoin.  How is this acceptable?  What has coinlab done for bitcoin anyway?

Hopefully the foundation will release them soon.  I'm eagerly awaiting all the talks I couldn't make it to as well!

Great weekend.

Hey all!

I thoroughly enjoyed the Bitcoin 2013 conference last weekend. Wish I could have stayed in Cali. . . Anyway, does anyone know where I can find recordings/transcripts from the conference? My only regret was that I couldn't be in all four rooms at the same time! There was so much information to be absorbed in that building. I definitely met some of the brightest minds I've ever encountered at that conference.

MegaD

HAHAHA So true.

I would like to be snarky and negative about your project, but as I scan through it, I cannot say that I feel it is completely without hope.  As best I understand it at least.  So, I hope for the best and will be watching it with interest.  Possibly even contributing if I feel that it is going in a way which will benefit me.

That said, one of my biggest complaints has always been that 'VISA-level' is actually pretty lame.  Some biz guy at the conference mentioned the number of cell phones vs. the number of bank accounts.  Something like 5x10^9 vs. 1x10^9.  (I only heard this from a friend as I was attending the tech related presentations.)  We are talking about some big big numbers if the worlds population is to gradually adopt distributed crypto-currencies as a means of transacting in economies.

Stratum was supposed to be 'the future of Bitcoin' as I recall ~moonshadow describing it.  I sense that he was not looking at the big picture.  I sense also that targetting 'VISA-level' will also fall into the same sort of trap.

If any one 'distributed crypto-currency' does NOT get into a scenario where it works in conjunction with off-{chain/backing/whatever} systems, it will likely mean that it has failed, and this is definitely the case with Bitcoin IMO.  The question then becomes what the solution looks like at that point.  Is it simple and reliable?  Or is it complex and filled with new and unproven conceptual underpinnings and methods?

It could be the case that in order to provide even a workable 'reserve' capability, Bitcoin would need to be 'VISA-level'.  That is the basis for my interest in your solution, and again, I wish you well.

BTW, I hope you are not going to make the same mistake as Bitcoin in taking a 'C client defines the system' approach (or PHP or GO or whatever your implementation choice happens to be...)  If so (vs. a more formalized specification) than it will count as a big strike against my hope for a solution which has long-term hope of success.