Topic: Bitcoin is a revolutionary currency but a fairly inefficient payment network - page 5. (Read 4489 times)

this is where doomsday theories rather than rational thought comes in.
some want 4mb (core) some want more. some want onchain some want 100% use offchain. thats where compromises come in and finding the acceptable level.
this "terrabyte block" doomsday has been shot out the park last year. the current compromise is 2mb bas 4mb weight.
the everthing has to be offchain has been shot out the park. the current compromise is expand onchain and allow offchain for freedom of choice.
i dont know why anyone is talking about terrabytes, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
i dont know why anyone is talking about only offchain will work, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present


there is misunderstandings and our misrepresenting of what a hard fork is.
ethereum was not a consensus hard fork it was a controversial fork.
ethereum bypassed consensus orphaning mechanism and literally banned communicating with nodes of different rules to avoid orphaning the minority. "--oppose-dao-fork"
it is actually Gmaxwell of blockstream that proposed that BU should split, rather than use the consensus mechanism which BU(ver) wants.

a consensus mechanism is what the community want to happen. rather than a dictatorial split.
consensus, everyone wins and everyone continues.
controversial, dictator wins and everyone else f**ks off

Visa is used as a example of a efficient payment network, but they have been around for 55 years. PayPal have been doing this for 18 years. Now, we want to compare Bitcoin that has been around for +/- 7 years with those kinds of payment options? Bitcoin are not funded like a corporate entity, it's network has been growing through decentralized contributions by the public and Open Source development through public participation governed by public consensus.

Let's leave Franky to discuss the merit of the scaling solutions being developed and how bigger blocks will solve the problems. ^smile^

As of now,its the waiting time is the issue if you are paying for groceries and other stuff. I am satisfied paying it online and having some confirmations to wait. Bank clearing takes days to clear sometimes if you pay in check Hope more improvements will be done.

But isn't it true to a point that the blockchain would be too large and that it will make it harder for people to run a node? The storage problem could be stored. But what about the bandwidth problem?


I also want to know your opinion what a Bitcoin hard fork would look like. I am afraid that it might happen just like what happened to Ethereum. The blockchain splits and now we have 2 chains competing against each other. Will it not slow down Bitcoin's adoption if this happens? I believe Roger Ver said something like if it happens then it happens, and he acted as if it was not a big deal.

If Bitcoin Unlimited "wins", what will happen to the core developers?

Bitcoin has always been a bit more on the inefficient side, but the transaction times are definitely one of the biggest issues facing the community today, alongside the block size debate. There will always be improvements that can be made, but there has to be an agreement on how these things should be changed.

by "realbitcoin" mentioning my name causes me to get involved. like a self fulfilling prophecy.
much like asling people to do an intentional split because the asker is afraid an intentional split will happen is also a self fulfilling prophecy.

anyway
i am open to both sides. i am not in the blockstream camp nor the classic camp. i am in the bitcoin consensus for everyone camp.
i just hold a sceptical mind about many things. not a utopian dream and not a dictatorial desire.

i have said that LN and sidechains have a place in the community. but people need to know the reality of what they are handling and that we should not be pushing for everyone to use offchain. even done subtly to pretend its not being done. especially when pushing false doomsdays.
doomsdays such as "that in 10 years the blockchain will be many terrabytes big so that no node will be able to run it, except centralized data centers." are false doomsdays made by blockstreamers to push their offchain agenda.

there is a balance. a compromise. and although some are presenting 8,6,32 proposals now..
i personally feel 2mb base 4mb weight is a good compromise everyone could agree with, and everyone gets what they want.. IF they put their political party ambitions aside.

forcing false doomsdays to coerce people offchain,(even done subtly) causes less people to want to become nodes(for security). less reason to want to become miners(for security). and turns bitcoin into a less secure system.
thus moving people to sidechains permanently the agenda. (much like "realbitcoins" rhetoric last year involving the altcoin NXT being bitcoin 2.0)

bitcoin needs to continue having an open and fair choice to continue doing onchain transactions for the immutable security. or offchain for the faster convenience.
there should not be an all or nothing debate.(though blockstreamers want all or nothing)

bitcoin is an open network that should have no barriers of entry and no dictatorship in central authority. this should not change.
by barrier of entry i mean. today sticking with 1mb blocks is a barrier to entry. jumping to obscene block sizes of "terrabytes" is a barrier of entry
thus a safe and workable compromise and agreement by the community is the best option to continue bitcoins ethos.

It is inefficient because also of all the energy used in proof of work. For now I am on the side of the smaller blocks + looking for off-chain transaction solutions. They must exhaust all possible avenues in finding a solution before the core developers make their own implementation of a hard fork.


Is franky1 a big blocker? I assumed he was neutral and was open to both sides of the argument.

Bitcoin is working fine for online payments the problem is in real life where it is not possible to wait more than 10 minutes on a supermarket for your transaction to be confirmed.I hope that lightning network or something similar will fix this issue in the future otherwise, we will have to move on another cryptocurrency(none of the existing ones is good enough to replace BTC imo) for our daily payments and we will keep Bitcoin as an asset only.

Bitcoin is still in its infancy stage and there's still room for improvement, including the transaction speeds. Give it a few more years and we might see improvement happening little by little. For now, we just have to deal with the slow transaction speeds and live with it while people are working on the technology.

Seriously i'm a franky's fans.  he is very active users with good statement and suggestion.

That's right i agree with you. just like the confirmation and unable for using a zero transaction caused by the double spending are preventing the bitcoin could be a efficient payment network. and just hoping the LN will resolving the problem and making the bitcoin be the efficient currency in the future. but we need a lot of the developer are wanna making a new ideas for bitcoin.

Thats actually a really interesting point, and I don't think I've seen it brought up before.
Visa has had decades to improve its efficiency so Bitcoin isn't doing that bad IMO.

We do need to improve confirmation times if we want to move beyond being an online payment system.
The only (currently) acceptable option for using Bitcoin in person is to load it on a debit card etc,
which means you are relying on another service to enable your payments. The complication and fees make this really unattractive to most everyday users.

According to Blockchain.info the estimated transaction volume over the last 24 hours was about 343,500 BTC, and the total mining revenue was 2000 BTC.  The cost of the Bitcoin payment system is about 0.6% of transaction volume.

Visa's yearly transaction volume is about $3300 billion, while its revenue is about $14 billion. The cost of the Visa network is about 0.4% of transaction volume.

Visa is currently more efficient than Bitcoin, but I expect that to change in the future.

The transaction times, meaning the confirmation times, are quite literally the only issue I have with Bitcoin right now, to be honest. Everything else works fine for the most part, and nothing else has to be changed. Getting quicker transaction times, though, kind of requires mucking about with the mining algorithms, which can prove to be detrimental very quickly.

I do heard a lot of people complains about the inefficient as payment network, but for now most people are using it as investment and many people used it not only for as currency but they used it for many reason, some used it for gambling some used it for trading, so even though it has disadvantage in payment network but it also has a lot of advantage that keep bitcoin alive

Excuse me. That is NOT my statement. It is made by nullc aka Gregory Maxwell, one of the longest contributor of Bitcoin Core software and CTO of BlockStream - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/gmaxwell-11425

well, yeah. it's a totally obvious statement. but that's the price you pay for bitcoin's unique qualities. no doubt it's gonna get slicker as the years go by but its very nature will always make database based solutions more efficient by an order of magnitude or two.

It's a mixture, it will be both after sidechains are introduced.



https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/franky1-65837

You will meet him very soon, he always gets triggered when there is a hardfork/bitcoin scaling debate. And he will tell us why a 2mb hardfork is so great, that in 10 years the blockchain will be many terrabytes big so that no node will be able to run it, except centralized data centers.

I enjoy it as a crypto-asset (I like that name) much more so than a currency, and I've said that many times.  I hold it like I'd hold gold or silver.  I have yet to actually use it to buy something, and I have no desire to do so.

Aside from that, I'm glad other people are smarter than me and can make arguments like OP, of which I didn't understand a word. 

Decentralization (which allows for censorship resistance) has a cost.

I think, bitcoin is more of a crypto-asset than a crypto-currency. It lacks many properties a currency is supposed to have...

Who's franky1?