^
Have you read the linked article? Yes/No
Topic: "Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 4. (Read 8104 times)
Have you read the link I gave? Or do you prefer to rage first, and read later?
Rage?
I am not angry - please enlighten me if you think I've got something fundamentally wrong.
Perhaps what you are referring to is the costs of doing things according to how they need to be done legally if you are running a business.
As I was never running a business those things don't apply to me but sure I do understand that Bitcoin is not succeeding as well as it should in the remittance business.
Please read this first: https://medium.com/@Cryptonight/bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-eb5f437849fe#.uizq282l7
Offers some insight into the costs of remittance.
Again, what you're doing has nothing to do with that.
Offers some insight into the costs of remittance.
Again, what you're doing has nothing to do with that.
Seriously?
Have you read the link I gave? Or do you prefer to rage first, and read later?
Please read this first: https://medium.com/@Cryptonight/bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-eb5f437849fe#.uizq282l7
Offers some insight into the costs of remittance.
Again, what you're doing has nothing to do with that.
Offers some insight into the costs of remittance.
Again, what you're doing has nothing to do with that.
Seriously?
I have done remittance for several years (from Australia to China) and made a profit out of nearly every tx (due to rising BTC prices).
If you know what you are doing then it should cost very little (or even nothing).
The few times that I used TT to move money it cost me at least 30 AUD per tx (more expensive than every single Bitcoin transfer I have ever done).
<>
I'm almost sure those remittance companies all speculate on FOREX to maximize their gain, so they can afford cutting their fee if there is some competition. And most of the competition for them today is coming from online payment. I often see people buying/selling bitcoin using mobile payment at localbitcoins to do international remittance, that still costs less than WU if he knows how to put a limit order on localbitcoins
I'm almost sure those remittance companies all speculate on FOREX to maximize their gain, so they can afford cutting their fee if there is some competition. And most of the competition for them today is coming from online payment. I often see people buying/selling bitcoin using mobile payment at localbitcoins to do international remittance, that still costs less than WU if he knows how to put a limit order on localbitcoins
Please read this first: https://medium.com/@Cryptonight/bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-eb5f437849fe#.uizq282l7
Offers some insight into the costs of remittance.
Again, what you're doing has nothing to do with that.
Different implementations co-existing only applies to nodes, but in the end miners hash determines the protocol? Is this right?
Each implementation will build upon the longest chain that is valid according to them.
The problem is that if a specific implementation has something different then it will immediately "fork" (this is why no other software is actually doing Bitcoin mining).
Many remittance startups learned that Bitcoin is, indeed, an *expensive* way to send money abroad.
Because they do it the wrong way. I constantly use bitcoin to send money oversea and every time I can make a little bit money during the process. They must use limit order on exchanges and do not buy high and sell low
Bitcoin is for users with IT and financial experience, average Joe better rely on centralized services
What you're doing has nothing to do with remittance. That's why.
I'm almost sure those remittance companies all speculate on FOREX to maximize their gain, so they can afford cutting their fee if there is some competition. And most of the competition for them today is coming from online payment. I often see people buying/selling bitcoin using mobile payment at localbitcoins to do international remittance, that still costs less than WU if he knows how to put a limit order on localbitcoins
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
why is blockstream (the bitcoin-core devs) the only gods that can make an implementation??
I have never stated that - but what I am against is trying to dismiss the Bitcoin Core team via politics (which is what is going on).
he title of this topic.. claiming that there is a "take-over"...
that only one implementation can be king..
if you go have a coffee and realise that bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin-core can all work along side each other happily.. then you will see there is no take over threat. and you wont be so aggressively trying to insinuate that no one else can make an implementation unless they are bitcoin-core
"Hostile takeover" is generally an oxymoron here.
Sure, I would agree that if some nation state secretly built a mega ASIC farm to secure 51% of the mining power,
that would constitute a real hostile takeover.
But when we're talking about several POOLS which are in turn an aggregate of many miners,
who become an economic majority, who is that hostile to? Maybe hostile to die hard devotees
of the "core team".
if you go have a coffee and realise that bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin-core can all work along side each other happily.. then you will see there is no take over threat. and you wont be so aggressively trying to insinuate that no one else can make an implementation unless they are bitcoin-core
With every post you add you just keep showing how stupid you actually are.
BTW - where is your actual source code?
(you can't fool me with basic class definitions)
I've decided that @franky1 *needs to be franked*.
why is blockstream (the bitcoin-core devs) the only gods that can make an implementation??
I have never stated that - but what I am against is trying to dismiss the Bitcoin Core team via politics (which is what is going on).
he title of this topic.. claiming that there is a "take-over"...
that only one implementation can be king..
if you go have a coffee and realise that bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin-core can all work along side each other happily.. then you will see there is no take over threat. and you wont be so aggressively trying to insinuate that no one else can make an implementation unless they are bitcoin-core
yea i already proves CIYAM wrong with remittances when he saud he sent australian dollars to india, china .. i showed him the spread difference from converting australian dollars into bitcoin using localbitcoins.. and then using local bitcoins to convert bitcoin into indian ruppe and chinese yuan cost more than $10 that western union charged...
Actually you never proved anything but keep on posting this crap.
You are actually are a rather annoying troll IMO.
Many remittance startups learned that Bitcoin is, indeed, an *expensive* way to send money abroad.
Because they do it the wrong way. I constantly use bitcoin to send money oversea and every time I can make a little bit money during the process. They must use limit order on exchanges and do not buy high and sell low
Bitcoin is for users with IT and financial experience, average Joe better rely on centralized services
What you're doing has nothing to do with remittance. That's why.
yea i already proves CIYAM wrong with remittances when he saud he sent australian dollars to india, china .. i showed him the spread difference from converting australian dollars into bitcoin using localbitcoins.. and then using local bitcoins to convert bitcoin into indian ruppe and chinese yuan cost more than $10 that western union charged...
Actually no never proved anything but keep on posting this crap.
You are actually are rather annoying troll IMO.
It may or may not surprise you to know that, like myself, most people rarely send money from country to country.
Which is strange when you follow that up with this:
It may further surprise you to learn that sending binary data constitutes a negligible part of the cost of remittance payments. The costs are on the ground, in meatspace and bricks and mortar.
So you never do remittance yet seem to think you know all about it?
Strange - I actually *use Bitcoin for remittance* so unlike you I know what I am talking about.
Big deal. I use Bitcoin for remittances too. So what does that prove?
I think Chocula is right that traditional remittance companies' costs are largely in their physical presence.
yea i already proves CIYAM wrong with remittances when he saud he sent australian dollars to india, china .. i showed him the spread difference from converting australian dollars into bitcoin using localbitcoins.. and then using local bitcoins to convert bitcoin into indian ruppe and chinese yuan cost more than $10 that western union charged...
so he is flogging a dead horse with that unless the bitcoin ecosystem (businesses exchanges/fiat gateways) open up a cheaper avenue of fiat-btc with less spread, to cut the cost ..
as chocula said bitcoin transaction may only be 4cents.. but the conversion at either side (bricks mortar meatspace) where the conversion spread hits most to make those brokers most profit.. is where it hits hard
I think Chocula is right that traditional remittance companies' costs are largely in their physical presence.
Well - let me just point out that if I did not use Bitcoin to move money from Australia to China it would have cost me much more.
So apparently my saving money by using Bitcoin for remittance is "of no point" - then exactly what is the point of Bitcoin at all?
See my previous post.
The point of Bitcoin is to *become* a payment system. Most of those who invest in it *expect* it to become a payment system, just like people investing in a startup *expect* it to make them money someday.
Take away that expectation, and you're left with Beanies.
why is blockstream (the bitcoin-core devs) the only gods that can make an implementation??
Who is claiming that? Please cite me a source.
why is blockstream (the bitcoin-core devs) the only gods that can make an implementation??
I have never stated that - but what I am against is trying to dismiss the Bitcoin Core team via politics (which is what is going on).
Many remittance startups learned that Bitcoin is, indeed, an *expensive* way to send money abroad.
Because they do it the wrong way. I constantly use bitcoin to send money oversea and every time I can make a little bit money during the process. They must use limit order on exchanges and do not buy high and sell low
Bitcoin is for users with IT and financial experience, average Joe better rely on centralized services
I think Chocula is right that traditional remittance companies' costs are largely in their physical presence.
Well - let me just point out that if I did not use Bitcoin to move money from Australia to China it would have cost me much more.
So apparently my saving money by using Bitcoin for remittance is "of no point" - then exactly what is the point of Bitcoin at all?
It may or may not surprise you to know that, like myself, most people rarely send money from country to country.
Which is strange when you follow that up with this:
It may further surprise you to learn that sending binary data constitutes a negligible part of the cost of remittance payments. The costs are on the ground, in meatspace and bricks and mortar.
So you never do remittance yet seem to think you know all about it?
Strange - I actually *use Bitcoin for remittance* so unlike you I know what I am talking about.
https://medium.com/@Cryptonight/bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-eb5f437849fe#.uizq282l7
I actually use a Luger to pound nails. Doesn't mean that a Luger makes the best hammer, or that I'm smart.
Jump to: