Topic: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. - page 91. (Read 631982 times)
sorry for a little bit off topic question, but how a guest can write on this forum? the 1st post was posted by an anonymous poster that was guest am i getting something wrong?
Right now there's a lot of wait-and-see.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
The possibility that Bitcoin could take over all of the business of Visa/MasterCard is laughable. It took BankAmericard nearly 60 years to grow that kind of worldwide user base. PayPal, on the other hand, could be replaced with a superior system within 20 years or so. It would only take 100tps to replace all of the volume of PayPal. I doubt investors are laughing at PayPal. Blocksize will not need to be increased by much to handle PayPal sized transaction volume.
There are problems here that tps increases can't solve even with no cap and the highest grade nodes in every third house around the globe. As I mentioned above, Bitcoin needs to be a superior system in the minds of the current users of PayPal/Visa to steal away their customers. Where are the proposals for fraud protection, auto rental collision damage insurance, travel rewards, flyer miles, roadside assistance, cash back rewards, signature rewards, merchant discounts, etc. Bitcoin ease of use is about as different from Visa as a horse drawn carriage is to the automobile. Ease of use needs drastic improvements before Visa will need to start fretting. To think we can increase the tps rate and magically say, "ok, we're equal to Visa now just drop that plastic and come on over and use Bitcoin" is a child like mentality.
We need service companies. What is important is:
1) The market should require that the money they produce (the money extensions) should have the name bitcoin, not bitcoin backed pesos and the like. That is to avoid a devaluation. (Hey, now I get only a half bitcoin for my Instapay bitcoin, wtf!! That is a big red cloth to customers).
2) The market should require that they are readily redeamable. You might lose trust in them, or want another supplier. For this we need the maximum transaction per second number that the blockchain could possibly provide.
3) The market should require that they are fully backed. Could be cryptgraphic proof of reserve, but i fear that could be a lie.
Anyway, if a service company disappoint, there will be no way to save them by abusing the money system. If the public wants to save such company, it will have to be through taxation or loaning (with a nonfucked interest rate, good luck with that). I think the market will go for private insurance.
Isn't that a bit the same as saying "it is laughable to argue that Amazon in a few years could be big... it took Barnes and Noble 80 years to be a big player...".
...
I am personally are not a fan of regulation. But if Bitcoin should become mainstream and if it should create more value (in order to become the rich new elite 
) then regulation is absolutely needed 
Regulation hold everything back. And who and how is going to regulate bitcoin? Exchanges can be, but bitcoin itself no. ) then regulation is absolutely needed A lot of people are upset about the increased regulation that Bitcoin is seeing.
That regulation came about as a direct result of Mt.Gox (and several others) failing to honor their commitments, and is mostly intended to prevent a recurrence. Given what the effin' amateurs whose pretenses or attempts at doing solid business have cost Bitcoin holders so far, it's not a disproportionate response.
So, whatever other people feel about increased regulation, I can't say that it was the wrong thing to do.
That regulation came about as a direct result of Mt.Gox (and several others) failing to honor their commitments, and is mostly intended to prevent a recurrence. Given what the effin' amateurs whose pretenses or attempts at doing solid business have cost Bitcoin holders so far, it's not a disproportionate response.
So, whatever other people feel about increased regulation, I can't say that it was the wrong thing to do.
I am personally are not a fan of regulation. But if Bitcoin should become mainstream and if it should create more value (in order to become the rich new elite ) then regulation is absolutely needed
) then regulation is absolutely needed A lot of people are upset about the increased regulation that Bitcoin is seeing.
That regulation came about as a direct result of Mt.Gox (and several others) failing to honor their commitments, and is mostly intended to prevent a recurrence. Given what the effin' amateurs whose pretenses or attempts at doing solid business have cost Bitcoin holders so far, it's not a disproportionate response.
So, whatever other people feel about increased regulation, I can't say that it was the wrong thing to do.
That regulation came about as a direct result of Mt.Gox (and several others) failing to honor their commitments, and is mostly intended to prevent a recurrence. Given what the effin' amateurs whose pretenses or attempts at doing solid business have cost Bitcoin holders so far, it's not a disproportionate response.
So, whatever other people feel about increased regulation, I can't say that it was the wrong thing to do.
I'm still not wealthy or elite, I'm starting to think the OP is a troll.
Did you not get in your notbatmobile way-back-machine and buy some 2010-2011 bitcoin?
No, the batmobile lost a wheel and the joker got away.
Ahh. I'd heard the rumor, sorry to hear it confirmed. No wealth or elitism for you yet, I'm afraid.
I'm still not wealthy or elite, I'm starting to think the OP is a troll.
Did you not get in your notbatmobile way-back-machine and buy some 2010-2011 bitcoin?
No, the batmobile lost a wheel and the joker got away.
I'm still not wealthy or elite, I'm starting to think the OP is a troll.
Did you not get in your notbatmobile way-back-machine and buy some 2010-2011 bitcoin?
I'm still not wealthy or elite, I'm starting to think the OP is a troll.
This document is fresh from the press, it's not yet availible in english för som odd reason, but if you can read any of the other 17 langugeses that it comes in it is very interesting.
In short, one of the Swedish high courts has asked the European court for advice on where Europe stands on taxing the exchange of bitcoin to fiat and vice vesa. This in turn because a Swedish citizen appealed a decision from the Swedish tax authorties on paying tax for the exchange of bitcoins he is doing in his company.
The european advocat general Juliane Kokott suggests as a verdict that bitcoin should be regarded as a currency and not be taxed. The court usually go with the advocat generals suggestions.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=DE&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=165919&occ=first&dir=&cid=388883
In short, one of the Swedish high courts has asked the European court for advice on where Europe stands on taxing the exchange of bitcoin to fiat and vice vesa. This in turn because a Swedish citizen appealed a decision from the Swedish tax authorties on paying tax for the exchange of bitcoins he is doing in his company.
The european advocat general Juliane Kokott suggests as a verdict that bitcoin should be regarded as a currency and not be taxed. The court usually go with the advocat generals suggestions.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=DE&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=165919&occ=first&dir=&cid=388883
Quote from: QuestionAuthority link=topic=12156.msg11697664#msg11697664
[/quote
[/quote
Those are all good suggestions. Implementing them is a different matter. The real problem I see with Bitcoin's attempt to capture business from companies like Visa or PayPal is that Bitcoin isn't a company. We're a ragtag collection of independent businesses that can't even come to a consensus on how to best modify Bitcoin for usability. Company upper management can unilaterally make directional decisions. That ability will always give them the upper hand over an open source project that reaches around the globe for leadership.
And they are never wrong, too. Authority makes them invincible. /sarc
Visa Paypal WU bank workers etc can see the warning signs and the smart ones would be planning accordingly
Quote from: QuestionAuthority link=topic=12156.msg11697664#msg11697664
[/quote
[/quote
Those are all good suggestions. Implementing them is a different matter. The real problem I see with Bitcoin's attempt to capture business from companies like Visa or PayPal is that Bitcoin isn't a company. We're a ragtag collection of independent businesses that can't even come to a consensus on how to best modify Bitcoin for usability. Company upper management can unilaterally make directional decisions. That ability will always give them the upper hand over an open source project that reaches around the globe for leadership.
And they are never wrong, too. Authority makes them invincible. /sarc
Those are all good suggestions. Implementing them is a different matter. The real problem I see with Bitcoin's attempt to capture business from companies like Visa or PayPal is that Bitcoin isn't a company. We're a ragtag collection of independent businesses that can't even come to a consensus on how to best modify Bitcoin for usability. Company upper management can unilaterally make directional decisions. That ability will always give them the upper hand over an open source project that reaches around the globe for leadership.
Token Ring. Ethernet.
Spider. Starfish.
It may take time, but I have placed my bets.
Right now there's a lot of wait-and-see.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
The possibility that Bitcoin could take over all of the business of Visa/MasterCard is laughable. It took BankAmericard nearly 60 years to grow that kind of worldwide user base. PayPal, on the other hand, could be replaced with a superior system within 20 years or so. It would only take 100tps to replace all of the volume of PayPal. I doubt investors are laughing at PayPal. Blocksize will not need to be increased by much to handle PayPal sized transaction volume.
There are problems here that tps increases can't solve even with no cap and the highest grade nodes in every third house around the globe. As I mentioned above, Bitcoin needs to be a superior system in the minds of the current users of PayPal/Visa to steal away their customers. Where are the proposals for fraud protection, auto rental collision damage insurance, travel rewards, flyer miles, roadside assistance, cash back rewards, signature rewards, merchant discounts, etc. Bitcoin ease of use is about as different from Visa as a horse drawn carriage is to the automobile. Ease of use needs drastic improvements before Visa will need to start fretting. To think we can increase the tps rate and magically say, "ok, we're equal to Visa now just drop that plastic and come on over and use Bitcoin" is a child like mentality.
We need service companies. What is important is:
1) The market should require that the money they produce (the money extensions) should have the name bitcoin, not bitcoin backed pesos and the like. That is to avoid a devaluation. (Hey, now I get only a half bitcoin for my Instapay bitcoin, wtf!! That is a big red cloth to customers).
2) The market should require that they are readily redeamable. You might lose trust in them, or want another supplier. For this we need the maximum transaction per second number that the blockchain could possibly provide.
3) The market should require that they are fully backed. Could be cryptgraphic proof of reserve, but i fear that could be a lie.
Anyway, if a service company disappoint, there will be no way to save them by abusing the money system. If the public wants to save such company, it will have to be through taxation or loaning (with a nonfucked interest rate, good luck with that). I think the market will go for private insurance.
Right now there's a lot of wait-and-see.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
The possibility that Bitcoin could take over all of the business of Visa/MasterCard is laughable. It took BankAmericard nearly 60 years to grow that kind of worldwide user base. PayPal, on the other hand, could be replaced with a superior system within 20 years or so. It would only take 100tps to replace all of the volume of PayPal. I doubt investors are laughing at PayPal. Blocksize will not need to be increased by much to handle PayPal sized transaction volume.
There are problems here that tps increases can't solve even with no cap and the highest grade nodes in every third house around the globe. As I mentioned above, Bitcoin needs to be a superior system in the minds of the current users of PayPal/Visa to steal away their customers. Where are the proposals for fraud protection, auto rental collision damage insurance, travel rewards, flyer miles, roadside assistance, cash back rewards, signature rewards, merchant discounts, etc. Bitcoin ease of use is about as different from Visa as a horse drawn carriage is to the automobile. Ease of use needs drastic improvements before Visa will need to start fretting. To think we can increase the tps rate and magically say, "ok, we're equal to Visa now just drop that plastic and come on over and use Bitcoin" is a child like mentality.
We need service companies. What is important is:
1) The market should require that the money they produce (the money extensions) should have the name bitcoin, not bitcoin backed pesos and the like. That is to avoid a devaluation. (Hey, now I get only a half bitcoin for my Instapay bitcoin, wtf!! That is a big red cloth to customers).
2) The market should require that they are readily redeamable. You might lose trust in them, or want another supplier. For this we need the maximum transaction per second number that the blockchain could possibly provide.
3) The market should require that they are fully backed. Could be cryptgraphic proof of reserve, but i fear that could be a lie.
Anyway, if a service company disappoint, there will be no way to save them by abusing the money system. If the public wants to save such company, it will have to be through taxation or loaning (with a nonfucked interest rate, good luck with that). I think the market will go for private insurance.
Right now there's a lot of wait-and-see.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
The possibility that Bitcoin could take over all of the business of Visa/MasterCard is laughable. It took BankAmericard nearly 60 years to grow that kind of worldwide user base. PayPal, on the other hand, could be replaced with a superior system within 20 years or so. It would only take 100tps to replace all of the volume of PayPal. I doubt investors are laughing at PayPal. Blocksize will not need to be increased by much to handle PayPal sized transaction volume.
There are problems here that tps increases can't solve even with no cap and the highest grade nodes in every third house around the globe. As I mentioned above, Bitcoin needs to be a superior system in the minds of the current users of PayPal/Visa to steal away their customers. Where are the proposals for fraud protection, auto rental collision damage insurance, travel rewards, flyer miles, roadside assistance, cash back rewards, signature rewards, merchant discounts, etc. Bitcoin ease of use is about as different from Visa as a horse drawn carriage is to the automobile. Ease of use needs drastic improvements before Visa will need to start fretting. To think we can increase the tps rate and magically say, "ok, we're equal to Visa now just drop that plastic and come on over and use Bitcoin" is a child like mentality.
Even code is ready, bitcoin is saved thanks to Gavin 
Not really, he created a mountain out of a molehill so he could force though XT. Personally I'm much more in favour of garzik's BIP 100 proposal but each to their own I guess.
After seen the stress test on transactions i think bitcoin is ready for that block size increase, if we want to be in the wealthy elite, lets say we need to handle over 10k tx at lease, let the wealth distribution begin.
I don't disagree with anything you said but Gavin's latest proposal scales the block size (eventually) up to 8 GB. That's eight thousand times the current five-ish transactions per second, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 40K tx/sec.
Even code is ready, bitcoin is saved thanks to Gavin
Well i guess your confident turned into a pile of turd.
Right now there's a lot of wait-and-see.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
I don't think Bitcoin will rise much higher than it has - at least not sustainably - until mainstream investment places and fund managers are satisfied that Bitcoin is able to scale to at least thousands of tx per second.
Meaning, we not only need to make the block sizes bigger, but we also need to develop new technology. Side Chains, Fractalized blocks, or ... whatever. But right now it's not taken very seriously because, five transactions a second? And with a 20Mbyte block it'll go up to maybe a hundred? Don't make an investor (or a broker) laugh, that's not even a good attempt at a payment system that could get off the ground in a serious way. And so it gets dismissed.
Bitcoin could go above its current value, and stay there, only if the scalability issue gets addressed in a credible way.
I don't disagree with anything you said but Gavin's latest proposal scales the block size (eventually) up to 8 GB. That's eight thousand times the current five-ish transactions per second, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 40K tx/sec.
Maybe that's a bad idea, maybe it won't work, but there is at least some remote possibility that it could work, and we don't need any new exotic lightning sidechain sharded treechains (though it does't rule out developing any of those things as alternatives or improvements either).
Jump to: