Topic: Gavin is an Agent - page 3. (Read 9711 times)

merchants have to wait 3 months these days for clearing payments? I'm just asking, I really dunno.

why should be any serious merchant afraid of chargeback? In my entire life, I used chargeback once against BFL retards..As consumer, you have NO RIGHTS using bitcoin these days, you can only pray in basement, that merchant/service provider will deliver, what you paid for.

and this is not cool at all. Don't get me wrong here, I like bitcoin and everything, but counting non-reverse payment system THESE DAYS as ADVANTAGE is simply fucking madness.

That is true. Many people prefer the security the bank offers them, which is why they have their money there.
I am however sure that we will at some point see Bitcoin banks that will do that.

The question now is: Will merchants accept Bitcoin if they have to wait for 3 months for their payment to be cleared?
And have fear of chargebacks?

uhh my experience:

I'm using bitcoin at least once every week for buying some product/service (for last ~3 years) and I really can't call "non-reverse payment" system as advantage. Quick example: I paid part of my BFL order with BTC and part with paypal.

With BTC, I never got my money back, with paypal I simply opened dispute and they pushed them to reverse everything. I also made lot of mistakes during usage of paypal last years (wrong amount, wrong mail address) and I never had any problems to fix them.

With BTC, in last years I sent them once incorrect address (wrong copy paste) and 2x made mistake with floating point..

If you think, that non-reverse payment system is advantageous for customers/end-users, please time to time turn off your laptop, go outside and ask common people, what they think. maybe you will be surprised..

Absolutely NO. I voted for it 

If that were true there would not be cash. Everyone would simply use personal checks and use several forms of biometric ID.

As I wrote, bitcoiners call them advantages, but for the other 99.9% they are fatal flaws.  A system that does not allow mistakes and crimes to be corrected is a stupid defective system.  Anonymous accounts are much more useful to criminals than to honest people.  The two together prevents enforcement of property rights.


1 billion users doing on average 1 payment per day would be 1 billion tx/day.

Suppose that most of the traffic gets pushed off the blockchain, e.g. to Lightning Network; even so, there will be a need for blockchain transactions.  Let's say that 25 transactions offchain for each transaction on the blockchain.  Then the bitcoin network would have to handle 40 million transactions per day.

The current capacity of the network is 300'000 transactions per day.  You don't want to operate near capacity even at peak hours, so 200'000 tx/day will probably be the limit with 1 MB blocks.  It would have to grow by a factor of 200.

That does not seem bad, but the Ligntning Network is still only a fuzzy dream. No one knows whether it is technically and economically viable, whether people will want to use it, whether it will really achieve 25:1 offchain/onchain ratio.

Note also that, in the 5 years since the 1MB limit was set, the capacity of the network has increased 0%.  How long will it take for it to increase 200x?

Advantages.


Fair enough.  Satoshi was not prescient.  I think he made it clear that he had hoped for slow, steady growth.  What he got instead was massive early attention and a bubble.  Bitcoin is not unique in that regard, however.  So I think we should try to lay responsibility for "ponzification" of real assets (nay, the entire economy) at the feet of those actually responsible.


Hmm... I think this is a bit controversial.  Mining centralization hasn't seemed to have had any ill effects, so far.  But fair point.


Premature optimization is the root of all evil.


That's actually just not true.  There's good reason to believe it could support 1 billion users, indirectly at least.

Good lord, you're a 19yo Canadian boy? I guess young people are more aptly suited to think outside the box. Your youth is fine but you're Canadian! I may need to rethink my continued support for Bitcoin. That's aboot all I can stand. So you're a socialist that codes while ice skating with a tall cup of Tim Horton's coffee while listening to Celine Dion? lol

there is no consensus, but only the one of money. question is.. who has more?

Blockstream is the agent, why have one sock-puppet, when you instead can have nine to ruse the public into the illusion called "consensus"?

who cares about reputation on some random anonymous internet forum? gavin?

such cheap talk in here, people got their threads, assuming they would be of importance somehow.. such a joke.

decentralized consensus means you can try lobbying and brainwashing people, there will always be others that disagree and tell you how full of shit you are.

For some time now I've relied pretty heavily on the alternative media for information on how the world works, but it's a tricky situation because the alternate media is chalk full of whackos and moles.  Lately I've put more focus on trying to separate the wheat from the chaff here out of necessity.  It does seem that Canadians are well represented in the alternate media (and related) spheres, and in addition that they seem to be among the most convincing.

Like any interesting observation, it opens of a plethora of new hypotheses.  One of them would be that for (possibly historic) legal reasons, it is more convenient for certain arms of our (supposed) government agencies to employ them.  Another would be that the jurisdictional boundaries give foreign citizens a more confidence to act as they please though I personally don't sense any foreboding in doing what I feel is right for the most part.  Yet.  Associated with the last thought, Canadians are more culturally similar to us, may be bored with their own country, and look with worry to the goings-on of their Southern neighbor.  I would be

I'll say that being a 'conspiracy theorist' is fairly demanding intellectually.  It was a lot easier when I could watch McNeil-Lehrer (my don't miss show as a kid) and figure that one of the two sides was saying what I should be believing.

With what money? The few bucks he made while employed at TBF?

the forking nonsense is just FUD .. he's trying to drive the price down so he can buy it up on the cheap

If you were a Maxwell hater, you would say Maxwell is an agent. Same goes for Satoshi.. etc. Everyone that is not liked by someone, gets called an agent. But the thing is, we are all trying to make Bitcoin better in here, just with some different viewpoints, thats all.

Wasn't he CIA mole? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-gavin-andresen-undercover-for-the-cia-1076841

As you said most of those points are considered to be pros rather than cons for 99% of the community.

The last 2 points are where the real problem is.

Some of them:

* Payments cannot be reversed, even when coins are sent to addresses that non one has the key, or as a result of crime.  That makes it unacceptable for most comercial and individual uses.

* Users are anonymous, which makes it much more attractive to criminals (much more so than cash, for obvious reasons).

* The fixed supply created the expectation of fabulous gains that turned it into a speculative pyramid schema

* That "ponzification" in turn resulted in extremely volatile price, that makes a bad currency.

* The block reward and the market price were too high, leading to a hypertrophied and unsustainable mining industry.

* For that reason, the cost per transaction is way too high.

* Mining got inevitably centralized (last time I checked, the top 5 Chinese miners had 60% of the hashpower).

* There is no mechanism to reward the relay nodes, which carry increasing load.

* Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.

And a few more.  Before you say it, yes, I know that many bitcoiners see those as advantages rather than flaws.

yes but State's power is considerably reduced because of this. they are just public muppets now selling what's left of their respective countries (and people) to private interests..
hence it is nonsense to believe states have to be seperated from money, since they already are.