Topic: How are we going to beat the reptilians when monkeys are kicking our ass? (Read 323 times)

I see a bunch of trolls here who even dare promote fractional reserve and centralized platforms. Why are you even here? Oh yeah, to troll in hope of getting a valid count in your sign campaign. Most campaign managers actively discourage trolling, i hope you get punished.

Oh yeah, I'd be skinned alive. LOL! Supporters and fans are almost always way more rigid and pedantic than creators and inventors themselves. Satoshi just created Bitcoin, designed it in such a way that everybody has a say. Satoshi is just one voice. Satoshi isn't necessarily the one to be followed. The community decides the fate of Bitcoin. The community owns Bitcoin. We're all Satoshi. Well...

Anyway, my point is simply that Bitcoin could act as a base currency. We don't have to go that fractional reserve way. Although if we observe how things are happening right now, that's in fact the path we're treading. I bet all centralized platforms and custodial wallets and whatnot have fractional reserves. 1:1 is probably just a myth.

Your observation is pretty straightforward. The development of Bitcoin and its ecosystem was fast compared to other technological developments. Many think that bitcoin will change the global economic standard but they also think that this journey will not be unchallenging. Now we can see that this is true. If bitcoin can not face challenges like 'mempool congestion', 'spam' attack then how it will face the demand as a global currency?

Fee structures, the cost of running a node and its practicality, utility of lightning networks are some critical sector that needs a proper solution. Also, the rise of Dogecoin shows in the future bitcoin will not be the only player in the game when this sector is continuously evolving. Your insight into this current scenario is the bitter reality.

Current fees are 3%, however they change with the network. Transaction fees will become necessary when block rewards decrease, if we're thinking long-term. Remember that blockchain technology is growing, and Im optimistic that solutions will arise to solve these issues. You are right about node hosting costs, however technology advances must be considered. Storage solutions are becoming more efficient and affordable, so while we may experience initial hurdles, the future may not be so grim. Finally, Lightning Network issues exist. Bitcoin's resiliency is shown by its ability to adapt. Remember that innovative technology like Bitcoin has growth pains. Addressing these issues head-on is key. Doge's transactions are separate, thus analogies may not help. Focusing on the big picture, I believe Bitcoin will rise through collaboration, creativity, and tenacity.

Ok, let's say it was a misunderstanding.

But why continue on this path the discussion about misinformation here when obviously there is none?
If you're thinking of accounts on twitter that spread such a thing related to this subject feel free to post it here but don't make it sound like I'm the one doing it because you can see right here on this topic I'm the only legendary that posted data while the others commented on it, so it's pretty normal I feel targeted, not to mention the fact that legendary implies bitcointalk since there is no such rank on Twitter.

I feel like nowadays you can't say anything bad about something happening in crypto without getting pitchforked as I said above, every single attempt to discuss negative issues is hitting a stonewall and I'm starting to wonder if some don't wish to live in a total denial state where there is no bad news and thus no threat on their wealth in coins.


Yeah, but if you go to the next line I dare you to say this in a post here without mentioning who wrote it first, and if you do please let me know so I can enjoy everything that is being thrown at your :

Never said nor did I imply you were ignorant or spreading misinformation. You clearly misunderstood me.

The post I replied to made a point on how for some, number of likes and retweets can indicate factual information. Bringing it closer to home, on how information from legendary accounts could be considered accurate compared to one from a newbie. I replied that unlike Twitter where misinformation could quickly spread from an account with a large following, it would be difficult to tout misinformation as truth on here as there are knowledgeable people ready to debunk such information.
 
What do I know anyways, I’m just an illiterate money.

Or perhaps Bitcoin doesn't even have to be that day-to-day global currency everyone shall be using all over the world. With what's happening right now, we're once again confronted with the reality that Bitcoin simply can't perform that role. I'm reminded of Hal Finney's vision of Bitcoin becoming some sort of a "high-powered money" in the future. The genius was at least realistic in acknowledging Bitcoin's shortcomings. The Lightning Network is a development in this direction.

Are you calling me ignorant and spreading false rumors?
What false rumor, what am I ignoring and what do you hope to debunk?


Common, waiting 20 years when probably 100TB smartphones capable of 1 Gbps will be normal to raise the block limit from 1MB to 4 or 10 is just ridiculous, it's like a company saying now they plan on waiting till 2040 to release a laptop with 2gb of storage! Yeah, the time has been long gone when this should have been done already, all the babbling about high cost is just non-sense, nodes would need to spend $100 extra, make that for 10000 nodes, that would be 1 million over 4 years but no, no problem, let's have users spend an extra $400k in fees each day, that is normal!

This move could have killed all those shitcoins and cleaned the whole crypto space of copy-paste projects which have only one slogan, faster and cheaper than bitcoin, but no, just because the ones that had this idea in the first place were some pieces of shit now we can't do it because it would prove they were a bit right, and no one wants to admit it!


LN right now would save a lot of space if only it would be used by more exchanges as a ton of transactions that are only people moving coins from one exchange to another would be done through it. It would save a lot of space not to mention the whole batching process when exchanges consolidate their inputs but seems like things are going way too slow.

I don't believe the transaction fees will be enough to keep the system going. The miners confirming the transaction own the transaction fees, and because they still have control of the blockchain, they can easily come together to increase the fees of confirming a transaction, which could be relatively okay at the time because the price of bitcoin will be upped, and they may be more manipulated by coming together and agreeing on a common ground that will benefit them all.

I have said from the start that the Lightning Network is too complex and too much extra effort for ordinary people. The developers found a side-chain solution, but it is not a user-friendly and simple concept.

We need an on-chain solution for the congested periods and we need a supplementary "reward" for miners, when the Block reward falls away... because the tx fees is simply not going to replace it...and still be profitable for the miners. 

You cannot implement side-chains that will effectively reduce on-chain transactions and still think that enough transactions will still take place to generate enough tx fees to reward miners in the future. 

By the time the block rewards are gone, the price of bitcoin would probably be through the rooftop and for transactions, the fees would likely increase just enough to continue to motivate miners.


I guess on here, legendary members are thought to have gathered accurate information themselves during the journey from lower ranks, enough to teach and correct the misconception of new members.
On here, a legendary member may be ignorant and may also spread false information as truth but it  would be quickly debunked and corrected by other members who are more knowledgeable on that subject.

Pitchforks are only for those who demand blocksize increase today, especially an unrealistically huge increase.  I think it's pretty much a conensus among everyone that there will be an increase at some point, when storage will be much more affordable. It could be in 10 years or 20 years or even more, but technology will surely progress. But this doesn't cancel the fact that on-chain capacity will always be small, compared to transaction volumes of even a small country.

the subnetwork you mention made many broken promises 6 years ago and has not fixed its flaws..
many users have rejected it and used other subnetwork bridges to bitcoin.. theres a few that are only 2 years old but have more liquidity than the one you advertise. which just goes to show your favoured subnetwork has lost the game..

broken promises, lack of security and too many exploits.. is why the subnetwork you mention is losing its fame.. i think those devs need to go back to the start and make something new that meets promises from the start rather then try and fail to patch exploits that just create new exploits of the flawed existing subnetwork

I quit after one page, the same promo bs on how putting your money in their business is a good idea.
Besides I'm really getting tired of how something simply having more hashrate is making the network more secure, it's all down to cost, to attack this so let me explain it for you without the mumbo jumbo the others were saying to make you lose your money in their scheme

- Right now hashrate is at 400 exahash translated into 4 million gears of 100th/s with a cost per piece ~2000.
- in May 2013 the hashrate was 100th/s, was the network protected by gear worth $2000? Could you attack it with $2000?

Hahsrate alone is a meaningless number, what it matters is how much money you have to pour in to obtain it!


Prepare to get pitchforked for this! 


While I agree with what you said as a definition and situation per se, is there a deeper something-something hidden that refers to my own assumptions?  Cause like now I feel like getting in defensive mode over any of my claims if one or other do need such!


It also took humans about half a million years to realize hitting with a rock tied to a stick is more efficient than with a rock in your hand.
Look how long it took to go from cheques and landlines to smartphones with NFC payments 

The challenge lies in the source of the information. Many people repeat the same articles on the Internet, which are rarely correct or carry technically correct data, and then move to Twitter, which means the number of followers and the number of retweets is an indication of the accuracy of the information, which is wrong, so the problem is that there are many False information that people circulate to become facts without searching for its source or verifying its authenticity.

Even the trust here is based on the number of merits you have collected, so incorrect information from a legendary account can be more accurate than correct information from a newbie account. Everything that happens confirms our failure to find an accurate and impartial crypto source of information and therefore is not suitable for beginners.

I was reading up on this today, please read this article.

https://river.com/learn/files/river-bitcoin-mining-zettahash-report.pdf

This article goes into detail on how hash rate will increase over time exponentially.

Great read that answers some of your questions.

This problem will start arising in our lifetime, especially if after a few halvening cycles the price growth will start failing to compensate for them.


Blocksize increase will definitely happen sometime in the future, and it might result in higher block rewards because more tx per block = more fees. But would it alone make mining more sustainable? Probably not.


LN is still in beta so people are reluctant to adopt it. And the fees are not painful enough to force people to start looking at LN. 10-15 sat/vB is not that much right now. If the minimum fee will consistently be $5 or more, than LN will start looking more attractive.

LN can justify $50 on chain fees, because they will be like a fee for opening and maintaining a payment card with instant zero fee transactions. If the channel will last for a year or two, that's not a bad deal.

But the worst possible scenario is low Bitcoin adoption with low on-chain activity and as the result low fee rewards in blocks - together with halvenings it would indeed knock a lot of miners out of the game and make the network less protected. Our last line of defense will be treating low confirmation counts as unreliable. If right now 1-3 confs is enough, 10-20 might become the new default requirement.

Think of how long it took for people to go from barter - to gold / silver / coins - to paper money - to.....

BTC / LN / Whatever. Still young. Things will work themselves out. Even now, LN being below 2021 is not a big deal to me. The BTC price vs USD is also way below 2021 so perhaps, people are not using LN because they are sitting on their coins. Or, perhaps spending $0.40 to make a TX is not a big deal to a lot of users so they stay on the main chain.

-Dave

It's $0.0125 so down from 9 cents to 1 cent, what made you think that value was in BTC?


Actually, that's the interesting part of all of this, how do people see Bitcoin's role in the future?
The same thing as now with 1% of us trying to actually use it as both a payment and a way to keep our funds secure and the rest being interested in how much will it grow after halving, when ETF, when Wallstreet?
Because no matter how spectacular the rise in price will be at one point that will stop being out of the ordinary and if the coin wants to stay relevant it will need to become really mainstream, not fomo profits mainstream but day-to-day usage, and that...is tricky.

Why did you even decide to compare in price with using a US Dollar Value and then a Bitcoin Value? It's not even the same. I mean was it 1 Bitcoin of 2009 or 10 Bitcoins?
If it's at 0.0125, its still cheap according to the number of sats being used to purchase or fulfill the node cost. Next time I would appreciate if you get it clear and use one format to compare two different values.