Topic: Bitcoin is archaic - page 2. (Read 2555 times)

That's not even relevant, stop posting before you read anything.

It is not.

I don't recall the last time that I've waited for confirmations.

There was a time when bitcoin was 1000$. You could say that now it is more stable.

Network effects. But there's a tipping point approaching...

So if bitcoin is so archaic and slow then why are people still using it?

there are service like purse.io on which you can use your bitcoin, that accept 0 conf

That's because most use third party payment processing where the third party doesn't have a way to know whether you have made purchases before without trying to scam them.

Perhaps, but I don't know a single vendor now that will accept anything on 0 confirmations anymore. In fact most require 2.

Non instant confirmations aren't a fundamental flaw design, neither it is a feature. It's a sacrifice to protect from double spending. Bitcoin being a trustless and decentralized currency transactions need to be confirmed before they can be considered secures. Changing that would require significant changes in the infrastructure or with a layer built on top of bitcoin. The latter can be dome more easily.

Um I have a feeling you do not understand the math.

A shorter block time only means less hashing power is needed for each block.

Thus for a shorter block time, you need more confirmations to have the same confidence - so say for example with a 5 minute block time, you would need 12 confirmations before you get the same confidence you have with 6 confirmations with bitcoin.

Let me tell you how credit cards works.

Customer pays me $126.65 via Visa. I get the auth. Everything seems cool.

A week later I am told the card was stolen. It doesn't matter that I already shipped the product, they take that money away from me - and charge me a fee for having accepted a stolen card. So now I have shipped the product and have less money than I had before.

That doesn't happen with bitcoin. It is usually safe to accept with 0 confirmations as long as the buyer has a decent transaction fee and is a registered account with your business.

For really big purchases you want to wait, but that's an option you don't have with credit cards - where a week later you may find out the transaction was no good.

For smaller purchases, if you see the transaction then odds are it will not be a double spend.

Accepting bitcoin is safer than accepting credit cards.

Bitcoin is not archaic. It is the future.

you will find that btc its now better into price tahn this alt coins and the volume its very high the slow compared trasactions its a minor correcteble bug you can trusth btc to be more good than bad as currency to find the btc to fiat even its very usefull so you buy sell use btc as any currency and getting better to combat the high time trasctions of banks and companies

From what I read about Dash is <60 seconds. I think most Alt 2.0 coins are very fast. Bitcoins needs alot of rewrite and it's time to start over with the same name or just throw it out completely. It's a total joke right now when it comes to transaction volume and speed.

So then what altcoin is the fastest?

You cannot execute a transaction faster than the next block found PERIOD. And sometimes blocks can take 30 mins.

So you're dead wrong. 30 mins is unacceptable on ANY LEVEL PERIOD. It's a fundamental design flaw.

It does not suck at transaction speed.

I make payments from bitcoin-core and they are very fast.
I make payments from coinbase and they are very fast.

Granted bitcoin-core requires sliding the slider to make them very fast, but coinbase doesn't and services like coinbase is what newbies are likely to use.

I agree that I do not mind Bitcoin being not totally anonymous. But for those that want anonymity I think the solution comes from services put over Bitcoin, not from Bitcoin changing its core.

Without "newbies" bitcoin is nothing but some theoretical pie in the sky "payment" system for a bunch of hard core geeks.

And right now bitcoin SUCKS at transaction speed. It sucks so bad I gather an entire rewrite is required.

Don't tell this to that incompetent imbecile list moderator though.

Not sure how it is possibly for a relatively new tech innovation is archaic.  If there is a fiat/paper money message board maybe this is meant for it.  Things will work itself out with bitcoin.  Nothing about it is archaic.

There is no dispute that the transaction capacity needs to be increased. There is only dispute on the best way to do it.

Most newbies use web wallets, like coinbase, and they are really fast at getting the transaction onto the block chain.

Increase the block size. Isn't that the whole fight over the upcoming fork?