Topic: Bitcoin go mainstream vs keep his value ?? (Read 1363 times)

I think that once it goes mainstream, there will be more demand and the value of the bitcoin will go higher

I wouldn't worry about it going mainstream soon enough people will be using the blockchain without even knowing it. Oh yeh buy when its low

I do hope it's gonna become mainstream. At least become accepted by more businesses

I think BTC will go mainstream and also keep its value, as more and more people will use it. However, there is also a downside to this. The more people who use bitcoin, the less the value might become.

Oh well, time will tell.

Note that I said 'try to'.  The last time I had occasion to move BTC around was when I was selling, and that was when BTC was flittering around 4 figures.  If/when I sell again, I'll probably adjust the transaction fee.


Bitcoin is a batch system.  It never was suitable as an exchange currency for buying trinkets and that is why it is not successful here.  Attempts to shut our eyes to this realitiy and kludge around it only add problems.

'slow and expensive' means vastly different things to different people.  To me it means rock hardness and robustness against attack and that is exactly what I am looking for.  It also means something which is a suitable foundation upon which to design and build solutions which actually are good for a wide variety of uses including those which are 'fast and cheap.'  Again, I look forward to such solutions for my own use and for other people of all walks to reap some of the benefits of crypto-currency solutions.

Lastly, I expect that I would become more reliably more rich if XT took over and Google, Facebook, and friends had their way with it.  I've already taken some profits so I'm even more inclined to try to achieve with Bitcoin it's true potential as something unique and worth a shit for humanity.  The only thing which gives me pause is that Bitcoin might be detracting from work on something better.  I'm still at the point where I think Bitcoin is the best bet, but not by much.

No it wouldn't be a "disaster".  1MB blocks don't prevent spam, they just make it last longer in the mempool.  It doesn't magically make the spam that's already been sent over the network any smaller.  All it does is make it wait for a little while before adding it the the blockchain.  It all gets through in the end.  If you want a blockchain that's spam-proof, try again, we're failing miserably at that so far.  And it's certainly no valid pretense to try and force legitimate transactions off-chain to benefit a small minority while providing a lesser service for everyone else.  

If the minority want their own exclusive, elitist blockchain to take them to the moon, they should have researched a little more carefully before buying into this one.  The ideal vehicle for that venture is not an open source, permissionless one.  A vehicle for the masses is what this system will naturally evolve into whether the elitists like it or not.  The only thing they can do to stop it is to keep spreading FUD about how even marginally bigger blocks are tantamount to death (so notice what they're doing right now?) and it's getting old already.

Again, we need a realistic blocksize that reaches a fair compromise between security and capacity.  

I only have about 3 btc and i would like it go mainstream not for profits, but because it is a good payment system. Bitcoin can keep the current value until all the infrastructure is ready, then adoption will slowly pull prices up.

Now you lost me. I run a fully validating node and once the blockchain has synced it's around 4-10kB/s up and down, so barely noticeable.
That's about 0.2%/1% of my available bandwidth on 50/10 Mb. ($25 month)

With my current home connection it would be likely manageable up to full 32MB blocks.

@DooMad, if Bitcoin had a 33MB blocksize now it would be a disaster. Back in the day it wasn't a problem because only 4 geeks used it, now Bitcoin is under attack constantly because it's the biggest disruptor since the internet. The fact the blocksize is being evaluated this much is because we need to do it accordingly. Actually satoshi made it 1MB when bitcoin started getting more people and he saw the risks of a big blocksize.

Wait, what?  Did you suddenly get more generous in the last few days?



Every single time it comes back to paranoia about free transactions.  I don't care if free transactions get shoved off onto a third party payment network, but if a fee is paid, even an average one, the purpose of that fee is for a miner to confirm the transaction and secure it directly on the blockchain.  Not to shove it off to some third party.  Not to guess what fee you need to pay to make it in to the next block.  Not to wait if you guess wrong.  Not to provide a shitty service for the average user.  Not to turn the forum into a massive clusterfuck of "Bitcoin is slow and expensive" (the opposite of what it is now).  That's what you'll get if you try to run the network constantly with full blocks.  If people keep suggesting that a fee market alone suddenly makes bitcoin scalable, they're simply deluded.  Taking that route just means we'll be having this argument again later and it'll be much easier next time around when it's proven beyond all doubt you're wrong.  

I'm not saying let's have an unlimited system and free shit for all.  I don't think anyone is saying that.  I'm saying let's have a realistic blocksize that reaches a fair compromise between security and capacity.  

Hint:  that compromise sure as hell isn't as small as possible to make a few early adopters wealthy and screw everyone else over.

Bitcoin will go mainstream and I don't see who will prevent this.

The governments? I don't think so, I don't think they will bother with us. I am not one of those who thinks that we need to replace the current financial system in order to succeed. I think that we can complement the current financial system and add value to it. Yes, we will replace some services that are being used at the moment, but this is what progress is. Of course, first we need to solve our internal problems, but this is what progression means as well.

The blockchain is here to stay, in this form or another, everybody remember that and it will make it mainstream.

The 'open to all' is EXACTLY the reason I feel as I do.  I am very confident that if bitcoin bloats under the incorrect notion that 'open to all' means 'open to all for free' rather than 'open to all who are willing to support it' it will NOT be 'open to all' by any stretch.

I practice what I preach.  I try to pay the equiv of around $10 per transaction in fees.  This figure would result in a fee reward to infrastructure supporters which is big enough to keep them interested but small enough to not justify football sized datacenters.  It is also a terrific deal for me both in terms of costs compared to international wires, and in performance (minutes rather than days.)

I also long to re-join my 'peasant' peers and am very much looking forward to sidechains where I can micro-tip and buy coffee and what-not without fucking up the system.

I would also be happy to use XT from my Google Wallet and get 'cash back' and other 'free' perks for allowing them to spy on me and cut me off from supporting 'insurgent' entities (like Wikileaks who I feel is doing the U.S. a great service.)  I simply don't want that to be my only option.

---

I will repeat that 'Multibitch-class' users ad no value to the core system.  They are simply drones who, at best, push Bitcoin into a form I don't like.  At worst the will act, unbeknownst to themselves, as a botnet to DDOS the supporters I do respect.

Where I don't practice what I preach at this point is that I don't actively support the system.  Even at the 1MB setting, it is impractical for bandwidth reasons to run a full node behind my $80/mo broadband connection.  As for contributing anything in the way of code, testing, etc, as long as Hearn (who I consider to be a rat bastard) and Andresen (who I consider to be Hearn's philosophically retarded poodle) have anything to do with Bitcoin it's simply not worth wasting my efforts over.

I have around 0.9 BTC and I would prefer that it keeps its value and keeps offering earning possibilities. It would be nice to see it mainstream too, but if I had to choose, I came in looking for another income method, and that requires a good Bitcoin value.

obviously i would prefer it goes mainstream, everything that leads to mass awareness and mass usage of bitcoin is good IMO.


supply is increasing every day that passes the thing that is being halved is the block reward which means that supply will be  increasing at lower rates.

It's a difficult question to answer honestly, because most of the people who claim it "can't" go mainstream are only saying that because don't want it to go mainstream for purely selfish and greedy reasons.  They want Bitcoin to only benefit the early adopters and whales.  They think they can burn the drawbridge behind them now that they're "safe".  An exclusive Bitcoin blockchain just for them and third party payment channels (not entirely dissimilar to Ripple) for everyone else.  Those who care more about Bitcoin's utility and the disruptive potential it holds believe it can go mainstream if the elitists don't try to hijack it by artificially crippling it to further their own ends.  It's not all about the price in fiat.

Hence all the forum drama.  Ideals are strongly contested.

All the people who insist that Bitcoin will die a horrible death with a larger blocks always seem to conveniently forget that it originally had a 33.5MB blocksize, not 1MB.  It would still be running just as fine as it is now with 33.5MB blocks and yet everyone's losing their fucking minds quibbling over 8.  What's the real goal behind that drama?  Greed. 


"Fuck the rest of the world, I've got something that benefits me and I don't want to share".  Those are the true motives at play here:

link






Disgusting.  Abhorrent.  Bullshit.

Their argument has been backwards from the start.  They're saying that people who support larger blocks want to change the way Bitcoin works and that they need to justify that change.  But in reality, support for larger blocks is only ensuring Bitcoin continues to work in the same way it works now and always has done.  A permissionless blockchain that's open to all.  That's what we signed up for.  It's the anti-fork crowd that need to justify forcing full blocks onto everyone and the only reason they can come up with is that it guarantees security for them and no one else matters.  If you only want Bitcoin to benefit early adopters and risk driving everyone else away, then oppose larger blocks.  But if you want an open system that's available for anyone to use, you'll support larger blocks. 

I currently have a 0.3 BTC, I prefer that bitcoin is more known in the community again

Bitcoin won't go mainstream, not as bitcoin at least, it will be changed to the liking of the power players behind the scenes.
Big fishes won't allow present bitcoin to rule it is too dangerous to have 'free money' and to be frank they can't do anything now because bitcoin is killing itself.

Go mainstream, we'll see the price goin' higher..

This. Mainstream means we all become millionaires. There's no other way, mathematically. Adoption in BTC means price increase. It's the reward of being an early investor into something that doesn't have a rigged final supply.

it cant go mainstream and stay at (250 USD).

here is the secret:

either ZERO or MUCHO.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2nXgK34HIM