Topic: BTC/Seg/BTU Debate: Why I don't mind that miners will take over. (Read 1455 times)

Why do you use the word "fuck" so much? haha

Let me address your points.



Just because I want to have some fun, I would like to ask you the same question. What happens when ONE party ownsystem or have monopoly?
I'm not sure that you have read my post thoroughly. I was talking about Vertical monopoly, not horizontal.
Do you feel the same way about Walmart? You can always go and buy some stuff elsewhere. No one forces you anything.

Regarding ETH, you might be right, I really don't know, it might succeed or fail.
If they calculated their fee structure incorrectly then so be it...


This is a big one... we could have this discussion separately if you wish.

I also don't know, but the locking would probably be reduced to a very minimal period of time. few seconds or less.
So in that case fluctuations wouldn't matter much.

Yep.

ATM there are dark technologies that uses zero knowledge (zksnarks) and could be even an end game on the subject.
Too early to tell tho

I see the future as coin to coin directly, without BTC being as an intermediary.
So you could have your own likable coin, and it could be traded on the spot for the one that the merchant accepts with a minimal fee.

P.S. but he would probably accept many

I think that you are going to be surprised in the near future.
Just my opinion, but I think that we would see hundreds of different niches filled by different coins.


Sure, why not. It's a software after all. But should it be adaptable to *all* different situations?

On this one we really disagree.

Took me one year to understand that Bitcoin is not going to be a world currency.
Others will have that niche . If it does succeed, I see it more as a store of value like gold.
Sure, you could buy with it something at the store but most wouldn't.

Bitcoin is kinda mix of many things. Company, Commodity and Currency. As I see it atm, it leans towards commodity.
It doesn't need to take over Amazon. It has a different purpose.

Very true. And if skip over you'll see that I stated it before.


It's all about usability. If you don't believe that crypto adds value to the world, you shouldn't be here in the first place.

It's a different game... currently most value comes from *expectations* about *future* use...

But of course... long term, coins with their utilities being used will win.

P.S. Read what George Soros says about that. Expectations for future use can change the foundation itself.
On some levels Negative feedback can suddenly turn into a Positive feedback. So they are intertwined in a very interesting way.

You know what is going on party when ONE party ownsystem or have monopoly ?
You will be fucked hard that how life works...
Imagine MS Widows are miners do Windows/Miners want sell their services cheap ?
Miners/Microsoft don't give a single FUCK about users that is why antmine was mining 400KB blocks while others 999KB...
If you give up power to miners (single side) you re allowed to be FUCKED hard.
Same goes to Devs if you want give all power to Devs you deservd to be fucked hard.
There should be balance between those parties.
I have synced my node in 8h that is not that bad to get 100GB data. that was allomost same time like 3GB of Blackcoin.
I see that core had kept blockchain under control i don't think so that increasing bocksize will solve any problem.
1/10/100MB blocks will be  capped at some point and will blow up network to get instability.
Increasing blocksize will delay problem but will never solve it.

Just let ETH block-chain bloat in 2 years it has 90GB ... let it fly and have 100+ daps + transactions on chain you will see nice 1000GB monster in next 2 years. I don't even border join that circle jerk party.
When people were strting using ETH token it fees was like 0.01$ no is 0.1-0.05$
Dividends sending cost has rissen 10x in 3 months that will eat even those revenue form those DAPs it will cause
big disappointment in whole project. It will be victim of its success like BTC is now.
Blcokchain have limits if you want go over you need give up blockchain.

Sure, I didn't mean to say that BTC has to be the collateral.  But I don't see how you can trade without locking in, the time of the trade, the collateral (worth more than both offers of the coins to be exchanged including fluctuations in exchange rate during that time), the time you settle on an exchange rate.

Funny because I think we agree.


I realised that not so long ago in fact.


Yes, bitcoin will be (at best) a *reserve currency*.  But it will not be adopted by mainstream as THE reserve currency, however, it is practical as a reserve currency for everything unregulated, half unlawful, and dark finance.  Its transparent nature, however, is maybe not the best thing for that.

For the moment, with block chain tech, no linear block chain tech currency can ever hope to be a world currency on chain, and if you take it off chain, you have banking.  You need tree like structures and not chain structures in order to even hope to become a world currency.

That's also my opinion of the "good"  outcome of crypto, where you buy a crypto because you want to use it, and then forget about it.   The thing that is needed for that are fluid decentralized exchanges (not big things, and not with all coins, but just linking a certain number of coins together, where essentially both parties put up some collateral (in one of the coins) to do the exchange, and then agree upon exchanging two other coins at agreed-upon exchange rate.

And there's nothing wrong with that.  First of all, it wouldn't be "every few weeks", second, as the "first adopters" are essentially paid by the "last losers" of a coin, there's nothing wrong with being sometimes "first adopter" and sometimes "last loser".  After all, the idea of a currency is not to "hold your wealth", but as something you acquire to do commercial interaction with (selling and buying services and stuff). 

agree.  I still want Bitcoin to win though as I'm invested in it.

ETH is sort of an exception, but even then not fully.  Bitcoin is supposed to capable of change and adapting to different situations.  If everyone ran off every time there was a problem (which they don't, fortunately), then everyone would have to convert all their earnings to a new currency every few weeks and potentially lose all of their money in the process.  Even though ETH makes some useful contributions to the blockchain technology which Bitcoin is likely to not use, with most cryptocurrencies it's strange that they result in people arguing for the cryptocurrency itself rather than for any of those changes to be made to the supposedly adaptable Bitcoin network.

I don't really think that.  Well, there are maybe people really thinking that bitcoin is going to become a world currency.  In the beginning I learned about bitcoin, I was hoping that too.  But let's face it, this is not going to happen.   As such, to sustain a market cap of 20 billion dollars, and most probably a speed that is several spendings a year, you'd need a non-crypto PRODUCT flux bought with bitcoin of more than 100 billion dollars.    That is Amazon's business size.   You'd need amazon's business to pass entirely onto bitcoin in order for bitcoin to validate its CURRENT MARKET CAP.  So people spending $1000 on a bitcoin are already assuming bitcoin's currency usage of the order of Amazon's business.

However, there is a problem.  Bitcoin on chain will only be able to sustain 10 or 20 transactions per second if ever the 1 MB limit is lifted which I don't believe.  This implies that each buying (each transaction) on bitcoin must be of the order of $100 or $200, or bitcoin can't handle it.  So bitcoin couldn't even take over Amazon's business, because most stuff bought on amazon isn't $200,-.  And that is AFTER being upgraded beyond segwit.

If you allow for "banking layers" on top of bitcoin, you will create extra bitcoin IOU (fractional reserve banking), diluting the bitcoin price over on chain coins, and off-chain IOU, so yes, you can have a higher amount of transacted value, but you will not increase bitcoin's value through Fisher's formula with it.

In other words, the current market estimation of the future economic value of bitcoin already makes very bold assumptions about its use.

I think bitcoin is simply in a greater-fool game, black tulip type.

The Bold part shows one of two things.... 1. You do not have any bitcoins or very little OR 2. You are invested in a Alt coin and you want BTC to

go down, because you want people to buy whatever coin you are invested in. Just remember one thing... If Bitcoin goes down, the rest will

follow.... because people would lose faith in Crypto currencies if the strongest Crypto currency fails. 

My point is that crypto is not "to invest in", but to use.  The usage itself raises the market cap (Fisher's formula).  You can of course not stop people from "investing" in it, but it should not be the drive of the market cap.   Most stock market shares are valued for their dividend, which is the value the company delivers to the economy after deduction of all costs.  Of course, sometimes you speculate on future dividend when the company will grow etc... but essentially, a share is an estimate of the REAL FUTURE ECONOMICAL VALUE of the company.  The economic value of a currency is the trades it facilitates over other means of payments.  If by using crypto, a certain commerce happens or happens better and cheaper than without that crypto, this is economic value creation.  But, apart from dark markets, crypto has not much economic value for the moment, and not in any foreseeable future.  (no, people will not use bitcoin when the fiat monetary system crumbles ; hell, it cannot handle it at all !).

That was my point about its economic value.  Apart people gambling on it, buying and selling it to one another for cash or other crypto, not many people really USE it economically.  My mom neither, and me, very rarely.  I tried, and for some things it has a meaning (buying VPN services, VPS services... if you don't want a link to your identity).  But that's about it.

My idea is that one should not be able to make a fortune without providing value.  Gambling on seigniorage doesn't look to me like providing value.  "being first adopter" has no meaning.  Creating a useful system, yes.  Becoming rich because one was betting on it, without financing it as such, no.  That's not like a share holder of a company that financed the difficult start of the company.  The fact that first adopters gamble on it, doesn't bring in any specific value to the system or to the creator.  Their seigniorage is economically unmerited because no value was produced.

The only value one should obtain from a crypto, is the value of being able to do commerce where this was previously impossible/difficult/dangerous etc... In other words, by the economic gain of exchange, made possible by the existence of a crypto.  Not by being early adopter and sitting on your stash, limiting market liquidity for commerce.