Topic: Is Bitcoin the AOL of crypto? (Read 421 times)

Right, and how would that near instant settlement be different with bitcoin if there were to be scaling in the future? That's where the disconnect is for me, perhaps i'm just missing something.

As for the debate on cash, I was actually posting on a thread about that, I'll link it. I won't say too much more but you'll see my posts over there kind of outline a similar opinion to you. The time will come to transition to a fully digital form of payment and the removal of cash but that time does not need to be rushed. It's happening as it is and cash is still legitimate enough and useful in certain situations. There's no need to alienate people who don't feel the need to transition.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/china-says-rejecting-physical-cash-is-illegal-amid-e-payments-popularity-5084135

nope, but it;s the mother of all crypto.

It's really hard to compare bitcoin and AOL. What's the point? AOL has died down because of competition? No, AOL died because of the incompetency of the management, believed me I know everything because I used to work with them.

As for bitcoin, there's LN that will help about the fee's and scaling issue, its been slowly adopted so if the OP's problem is about the fee's and scaling and the fundamental flaw then perhaps LN might be the solution in long term.

Speed does matter, a lot, like you said, and I greatly agree. In my opinion the bitcoin devs just got it right by focusing first on security and decentralization, then going to solve the scaling problem, rather than the other way around which is mostly the case for most if not all altcoins.

And yeah, LN is definitely not that easy to use, probably even for some of your typical bitcoin enthusiast. But that's probably more of because LN is really really new too, also knowing that it's a bit risky to use LN for now if you don't know what you're doing. Though I'm quite confident that people will be making LN wallets that are significantly easier to use in the near future.

Why think it is a company? In my opinion it is and will be THE ITSELF MARKET. It will be the only crypto that will be looked upwards from all other types of electronic coins.

I think that speed is important for smaller transactions, whereas larger one's security is important. To be fair, your point about XRP is a very valid one (single point of failure as well, notice i mentioned something like NEM or Ripple, but not necessarily those two), ripples problem is a problem than NEM does not have as much (it uses a consensus mechanism called proof of importance which I find better in my own judgment than PoW or PoS, though PoW is better than many of the other options out there. If you are buying coffee with your Bitcoin, waiting for it to confirm would be tedious, same as if you were at a checkout. For larger purchases, like an expensive laptop, house, your monthly rent, etc security/decentralization wins hands down. If you wanted one cryptocurrency to do all those things, a delicate balance needs to be struck. The lightning network, if made easier for the average joe would solve the problem of coffee payments being slow, and the blockchain would be the settlement layer I described.

Crypto is still young, there is so much potential, but where and how it goes is as yet, unknown. It is interesting. I won't ever pour my life savings into it, but I have invested a small amount, as I think it has potential in the long-term to be a game changer.

The problem is not the alert or that it is transparent, the problem is what people expect from bitcoin, many believe that they will become millionaires overnight, or so they believed at the beginning of the year when this madness began, but now that they saw that it is not possible, everyone is moving away from the boat, the problem we have now is expectations vs reality.

I agree with your statements(hence why I gave you a merit), except this part. I really don't know about NEM, but XRP is simply too centralized to be a method-of-payment coin. Like, it has a CEO, might as well use a debit card instead, or better, physical cash for better anonymity.

I'm personally still betting on the lightning network for the future. If it "fails", then there will likely be more solutions. It's pretty much just a matter of when. The altcoins we have right now that are aiming to be for-payments, are mostly just speed. I personally think security and decentralization is still far more important than speed.

I do think it is the AOL of crypto in some ways. The problem is, all the public saw when they got a taste of it during the last bull run was high fees, slow transactions, community instability, and bickering, and then went back to their debit cards and day to day lives, I know plenty who found this to be the case. In terms of the public eye, it blew any chance of a mainstream adoption in the near future, though this may change in the long term. The lightning network is too complex for the average joe for now. I was getting paid in BTC for work, now I don't as they have rolled back their support of Bitcoin due to the volatility and the fork. So what I have seen is merchants actually stopping acceptance, not starting.

I think it has a chance at becoming a settlement layer or store of value, so will be a digital store of value rather than digital cash. I think something like NEM or Ripple is best placed for the digital cash front. Bitcoin has the advantage that it was the first.

This is coming from someone who has been in BTC for the long term. Does it have a future? yes. But there needs to be some radical changes and time needs to elapse. If like me you have any holding of Bitcoin, it is a long-term not a short-term investment. The 'get rich quick' days are over.

I always use my tap to pay debit card to pay for goods, even if it's just a €1 item. I don't care how the payment gets settled, I just want it to settle in a matter of seconds because that's the most important part of money's usability.

I see more and more stores completely discard physical money because people aren't using it that often anymore. I have even seen vending machines adapt by allowing people to only use their debit card or smartphone to pay.

The negative effect of this is that you exclude a layer of the economy that is still settling transactions with physical money. In other words, progress has its side effects and these side effects aren't easy to work around without guidance.

I'm well aware of all of these things. I don't see why OP has an issue with the necessity for data to be sent to the blockchain via the internet each time he purchases a packet of gum.

Interesting analogy but I would have to say no.
AOL did change the entire internet for the good- and even though Bitcoin is going down, it will still make the internet better.   2.0 has some will say.

Maybe you see things this way because you are a trader? I'm not a trader and I don't care that much. I've always wanted to have safe and anonymous money that I one day can use at stores. I still can't do it so I'm holding my coins and will hold them until it happens. If it never happens it's going to be sad, but it will mean that our society is not ready to be independent and we need others to dictate the pace.

I think everyone including me would feel quite stupid and angry when bitcoin reaches near $1000. Pretty sure at that point i would think why didnt i sell and go short.

I'm also an ardent supporter of bitcoin ever since I discovered things about it, but no, that's not a fundamental flaw but rather a strength if bitcoin is going to continue as a decentralized payment network. There is no element of trust involved on who process what, and as such, multiple verifications and validations should be taken into consideration if a pack of gum is bought, and that transaction should be listed so as to serve proof that a gum was bought (like a receipt). This is not overcomplication of things but rather an ingenious approach of solving the trust problem in a trust-less ecosystem.

There are lots of advantages with using bitcoin besides it being pseudo-anonymous. Sure bitcoin isn't fully anonymous, but anonymity is definitely not the only important factor with a ideal currency. You're missing the fact that bitcoin is:

• decentralized
• unconfiscatable(unless you're stupid and you tell everyone you have bitcoin hence someone will probably kidnap you)
• deflationary(hugely advantageous as a store of value)
• secure and tamper resistant
• ...and many more

Not to mention that people are also coming up with solutions to increase bitcoin's anonymity.

It doesn't show who owns the wallet or what the transaction is about. If people prefer to keep everything private then they should simply switch to privacy based altcoins instead

What will be the issue with alerting the internet every time you make a transaction using bitcoin. Be it small or big?  If the fees are resolved with scalability then it's not very different to the current system we have in place. If you want true privacy then there are plenty of coins for that or you could just use fiat cash.

Scaling will come with time, as people develop more and more potential solutions.

Yes, other coins/tokens are definitely fast and cheap in terms of transactions, and that's definitely good, but I'd take a secure and decentralized coin over speed any day. I'd prefer bitcoin's decentralization and security being prioritized, as it's obviously(or not so obvious?) a lot more important. Scaling solutions can be thought of and developed in a latter time.

If you are a Bitcoin enthusiast, you must have heard about the Lightning Network. Not only it solves the problem of buying a pack of gum, it also opens a brand new way to do business because it enables efficient transactions of fractions of a penny. Bitcoin developers are not amateurs, they know what they are doing.

Comparison with AOL doesn't hold, because Bitcoin's competitors are more like those busted dotcom companies while Bitcoin is the next Google/Apple/Amazon.