keepdoing - Account registered in August 2015
CIYAM - Probably one of the most knowledgeable people around here when it comes to the scripting language and op_codes of the Bitcoin protocol.
Funny how the people that understands Bitcoin initimately want to keep to the suggested roadmap, while new accounts, barely older than one year, only post about blocksizes and how important it is to increase the blocksize, in the name of freedom.
keepdoing - since you are so familiar with the inner workings of Bitcoin, could you construct a raw tx for us showing how you would commit a transaction to the blockchain, and maybe give us an example of different transaction sizes?
Seeing how you think of yourself as being familiar with the protocol construction of Bitcoin, and having a well informed oppinion about the blocksize, it should be a walk in the park for you to explain transactions for us as well.
Topic: Can we just stop with the block size panic crap? - page 6. (Read 4018 times)
Why is it not good for "coffees"?
1. malleability makes it easy to get a free coffee, so there is reluctance to accept zero confirms
2. if you want to get the coffee value confirmed in 10 minutes it will cost you 4 cents
3. if the coffee shop makes you wait for it to confirm to avoid malleability issues, then your waiting in a line at the coffee desk for 10 minutes, while 20 other people have paid via NFC debit cards or applepay and already left with their coffee. and you start to wonder.. is bitcoin really better right now..
I see, so essentially the confirmation time.
well also if bitcoin had 1 million retail stores, where people could use it to buy coffee, baked beans, toilet paper and magazines.. the amount of people using it for daily spends would increase instead people using for yearly savings.. and that would increase the requirement of transactions per second to cope with millions of people doing transactions each day.
EG lets say bitcoin can handle at most 3000-4000 tx's a block.. 144 blocks a day.. only allows for 432,000-576,000 people to do only 1 transaction a day.
lets say out of 2 million people who want to use it once a day.. bitcoin needs to be 4mb. so there is also the fact that user adoption (amount of people just wanting to do 1 transaction, is inhibited.. let alone what i previously said about what people could happily buy without issue or headache.
and lastly it leads on to dcentralised exchanges.. try day trading if 500,000 people are also trying it.. good luck with your 1 trade a day
We can't ignore it. Unless we do something right now we're all gonna dieeeee.
What Bitcoin is very suitable for is "remittance' (sending money overseas) yet so far it has virtually no market share in that sphere (which it should dominate).
Can we start focusing on remittance rather than coffees?
Why is it not good for "coffees"?
1. malleability makes it easy to get a free coffee, so there is reluctance to accept zero confirms
2. if you want to get the coffee value confirmed in 10 minutes it will cost you 4 cents
3. if the coffee shop makes you wait for it to confirm to avoid malleability issues, then your waiting in a line at the coffee desk for 10 minutes, while 20 other people have paid via NFC debit cards or applepay and already left with their coffee. and you start to wonder.. is bitcoin really better right now..
I see, so essentially the confirmation time.
Why is it not good for "coffees"?
1. malleability makes it easy to get a free coffee, so there is reluctance to accept zero confirms
2. if you want to get the coffee value confirmed in 10 minutes it will cost you 4 cents
3. if the coffee shop makes you wait for it to confirm to avoid malleability issues, then your waiting in a line at the coffee desk for 10 minutes, while 20 other people have paid via NFC debit cards or applepay and already left with their coffee. and you start to wonder.. is bitcoin really better right now..
Bitcoin is not suitable for "coffees" and why should it be (as practically no-one in the world is paid in Bitcoin)?
What Bitcoin is very suitable for is "remittance' (sending money overseas) yet so far it has virtually no market share in that sphere (which it should dominate).
Can we start focusing on remittance rather than coffees?
What Bitcoin is very suitable for is "remittance' (sending money overseas) yet so far it has virtually no market share in that sphere (which it should dominate).
Can we start focusing on remittance rather than coffees?
Why is it not good for "coffees"?
Totally agree.
This is getting ridicolous and I try to avoid to read those comments or whole threads which get opened new again and again.
Definitely shills who try to flame, divide and bring disturbance.
The roadmap is out for this year and I think it's a good one. I would like to have a bit of an increase in blocksize as well but this constant bashing, especially on reddit, is just crazy.
Well, you're screwed. Blockchain Players think you are ignorant and wrong in your opinion. They don't care about your opinion. They know better than you, they have the power, and they will do what is best for all.This is getting ridicolous and I try to avoid to read those comments or whole threads which get opened new again and again.
Definitely shills who try to flame, divide and bring disturbance.
The roadmap is out for this year and I think it's a good one. I would like to have a bit of an increase in blocksize as well but this constant bashing, especially on reddit, is just crazy.
ALL HEIL BLOCKCHAIN!
The 4th Reich of Fiat
How's the 'coffe' much different from remittance?
Predictable fees/sufficient MB per block means more people using bitcoins and more businesses accepting it, which in turn increase confidence in BTC as well as creates demand for exchanges (or localbitcoins), more competing exchangers reduce the convection fees. All that could create solid ground for direct bitcoin remmitance.
But my personal guess is that, in future, banks/WU will be using their own 'blockchain technology', which could enable them to massively reduce their fees (of course if they're willing to). For that reason, it's not wise to turn BTC into 'one-trick pony'.
Totally agree.
This is getting ridicolous and I try to avoid to read those comments or whole threads which get opened new again and again.
Definitely shills who try to flame, divide and bring disturbance.
The roadmap is out for this year and I think it's a good one. I would like to have a bit of an increase in blocksize as well but this constant bashing, especially on reddit, is just crazy.
This is getting ridicolous and I try to avoid to read those comments or whole threads which get opened new again and again.
Definitely shills who try to flame, divide and bring disturbance.
The roadmap is out for this year and I think it's a good one. I would like to have a bit of an increase in blocksize as well but this constant bashing, especially on reddit, is just crazy.
Focusing on long distance remittance needs to be performed by some company that chooses to focus on it just like BitPay did with point of sale. Start a company and make it happen or convince Tony Gallippi or someone else to switch gears.
As for the block size debates, meh, it gives lonely people something to talk about. Who cares.
As for the block size debates, meh, it gives lonely people something to talk about. Who cares.
i agree, i'ts like those that are worried all the time about 51% attack, which no miners in his right mind will ever perform against the network
this is the same, the "dev", will sort this out, because otherwise, will just be like hindering the adoption of their investment..
everyone want bitcoin to grow, afterall
It's not quite that simple. I agree with the Miner example to the extent that in the current environment it would be financial suicide. It would be such a visual, identifiable 9/11 style attack that you couldn't miss it. Trust would go by bye, everything would collapse. Even if it survived it would drop like a rock. Everything everyone believed about the decentralization of Bitcoin would be eroded in a second. NO ONE could ever trust it again.this is the same, the "dev", will sort this out, because otherwise, will just be like hindering the adoption of their investment..
everyone want bitcoin to grow, afterall
I think the problem with comparing this to the Blockstream Player/Dev situation is that it is a more subtle attack. It's a slow, manipulative, lying partially media driven, partially censorship empowered movement by a small percentage of the community - who actually DO have the power to stifle innovation and competition.
SUDDEN BRUTE FORCE vs SLOW DELIBERATE MANIPULATION
The new fiat looks and acts surprisingly like the one it looks to displace.
i agree, i'ts like those that are worried all the time about 51% attack, which no miners in his right mind will ever perform against the network
this is the same, the "dev", will sort this out, because otherwise, will just be like hindering the adoption of their investment..
everyone want bitcoin to grow, afterall
this is the same, the "dev", will sort this out, because otherwise, will just be like hindering the adoption of their investment..
everyone want bitcoin to grow, afterall
Apparently Mike Hearn simply cannot let a "dead horse" die.
I am Mike Hearn!
no, no... I AM Mike Hearn.
Oh, Ohh OHHH! We are ALL Mike Hearn!
Thanks CIYAM! You are as always.... amusing and good for a laugh
I am not telling anyone "what they should think" but instead just asking people to take a good look at "the reality" of Bitcoin as it stands now.
Again - no organisation is paying me for my opinion (but welcome to try and bribe me if you like).
Again - no organisation is paying me for my opinion (but welcome to try and bribe me if you like).
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill.
Some wielding massive influence over the argument are paid by organizations with strong incentives to steer the direction of Bitcoin. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you would consider that as well, while you have the conspiratorial part of your brain warmed up and humming.
Some wielding massive influence over the argument are paid by organizations with strong incentives to steer the direction of Bitcoin. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you would consider that as well, while you have the conspiratorial part of your brain warmed up and humming.
It is becoming apparent that there are paid shills participating in every topic to do with the block size debate.
Apparently Mike Hearn simply cannot let a "dead horse" die.
I do not work for any company (other than my own) and am not sponsored to make any statement but I will make this statement.
Bitcoin is not suitable for "coffees" and why should it be (as practically no-one in the world is paid in Bitcoin)?
What Bitcoin is very suitable for is "remittance' (sending money overseas) yet so far it has virtually no market share in that sphere (which it should dominate).
Can we start focusing on remittance rather than coffees?
THANK YOU! Finally, someone to tell us what is good for us, make our decisions for us, hold our hands, tuck us in to bed at night, etc.Apparently Mike Hearn simply cannot let a "dead horse" die.
I do not work for any company (other than my own) and am not sponsored to make any statement but I will make this statement.
Bitcoin is not suitable for "coffees" and why should it be (as practically no-one in the world is paid in Bitcoin)?
What Bitcoin is very suitable for is "remittance' (sending money overseas) yet so far it has virtually no market share in that sphere (which it should dominate).
Can we start focusing on remittance rather than coffees?
Now that I have you to think for me, I can get rid of my pesky brain, freedoms, etc.
i have been saying this for years. but.. here is the kicker...until things like localbitcoins can sort out their large profiteering spread.. the 10% (5%buy for sender 5% sell to recipient) bitcoin is not going to beat WU.
i and many people have done some actual calculations. using $100 or $1000 and using the localbitcoins valuations calculated the amount of bitcoins obtained.. then picked a remote country and calculated the amount of remote native fiat currency it converts to.. and then looked on WU website to copy the same fiat to fiat swaps..
and WU was actually cheaper.. (recipient ends up with more)
edit: ciyam just gave an example in another post of sending $10 to india, suggesting its 0 fee, so i done a quick calculation.. and its 6% "fee"(spread)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13419774
until bitcoin buyers/sellers sorts out the spread (hidden fee) then the recipient will still get less via bitcoin than WU..
sorry but even if bitcoin pretends to have no fee's... there are still hidden costs..
so bitcoin is not perfect for remittances either right now
.. but it could be
i and many people have done some actual calculations. using $100 or $1000 and using the localbitcoins valuations calculated the amount of bitcoins obtained.. then picked a remote country and calculated the amount of remote native fiat currency it converts to.. and then looked on WU website to copy the same fiat to fiat swaps..
and WU was actually cheaper.. (recipient ends up with more)
edit: ciyam just gave an example in another post of sending $10 to india, suggesting its 0 fee, so i done a quick calculation.. and its 6% "fee"(spread)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13419774
until bitcoin buyers/sellers sorts out the spread (hidden fee) then the recipient will still get less via bitcoin than WU..
sorry but even if bitcoin pretends to have no fee's... there are still hidden costs..
so bitcoin is not perfect for remittances either right now
.. but it could be
To expand on what I am saying I think that you need to consider this:
Companies like Western Union would go out of business if people just used Bitcoin for remittance (real *disruption* IMO).
Companies like Western Union would go out of business if people just used Bitcoin for remittance (real *disruption* IMO).
Jump to: