Topic: Paying with Bitcoin where there's rush (Read 494 times)

there is more to it than your propaganda.. but thanks for your admission that YOU think bitcoin doesnt work. but thats your opinion..
we know you dont like bitcoin. you made that obvious in many topics.

the capitalist politics of not allowing scaling is whats holding bitcoin back. scaling is not the issue, its the solution.. but again you dont want bitcoin scaling. because you prefer getting people to stop using bitcoin for daily use stuff

go on. admit it.
you started this topic pretending to want to know how to buy daily use stuff at a supermarket with bitcoin.. pretending that was your intent.. , but now you want to say bitcoin cant do that but your favoured other network can..

Yes. I like the entire process. I find it impressive.

May I assume you're referring to this? Is it yet implemented? As far as I can see, no. (And it's not going to be)

You're saying that Lightning is impractical while you're also suggesting to use a multi-sig between the buyer and the cashier. C'mon.

Well, guess what: Bitcoin, alone, cannot scale. It's inefficient. You don't have to state it 100 times that you want to buy a coffee, or to pay your Netflix subscription, or to pay your web hosting bills. And you know that's true, that's why you propose bigger blocks. Allow me to stop it right there as it becomes completely off-topic.

Maybe that is not down to you to define.

trustless? (pfft)*
yea combine that with not paying into the merchant direct(pftt)
but instead locking excessive funds up with some random person days before. then having to lock up more funds with another random person incase the first person is offline.
then having to switch off all the autopilot and public announcement defaults to hide from having your liquidity raided before you can spend it yourself..
and then have to plan which bunch of random people to hop through to hopefully find a link to the merchant you intend to use.
oh and then hope along this route none of them are *'turbo' faking channel balance.. to cause issues for you or the merchant

what you describe of having to have a few channels set up with more balance then needed locked up earlier then needed. and the HOPE that the merchant might be involved in the intricate web of hops when needed.. that is what i call inefficient.
heck even your altnet favoured devs have hit that wall hard, and said how the hop-route model is a both chicken and egg failure. it only works if enough idiots are conned into using the network, but then later fails again because everyone is then using the network leaching out the liquidity of possible paths.. thats why they are moving more in directions of the hub-spoke model of directly contracting with the merchants(albeit they still want to be MSB middlemen hubs inbetween ofcourse which has its own flaws)

as for finality/settlement..
especially when none of them are then broadcasting to confirm the payment to settle up. middlemen can then play games punishing each other in a chargeback scam game of fastest scammer wins.. along with all the rebalance games inbetween to empty out liquidity..

seriously. you seem to be stuck in the 2018 utopian glossy advert, and not actually done your research on how impractical your altnet is and how many ways it can be abused for people that just want to buy their lunch on a whim, without anything more then a 10 minute plan during lunchbreak.
(or maybe you do know how many ways it can be abused and thats your actual intent)

your altnet only works sometimes, if you are set up hours/days before hand with excessive funds pre-locked to increase chances of possible paths(still with no guarantees). and then even if you find a path there is no finality to the payment without the risks of middlemen meddling with the system

i prefer what bitcoin was designed for. paying the intended recipient without the silly meddle men 'hop-n-hope' games
(i purposefully spelled it meddle)

yea i know you dont like settling up and finalising. i know you prefer people to lock up and stay locked up so you can play games with their balance. but thats not bitcoin.

I wonder how many other factors can be included into this. For instance, could we measure the decentralization of each hashrate to conclude how hard it'd be for an insider to perform a 51% attack? Or to go one step further and say, who the hell cares about Dogecoin? 

Lol. Why thunder, though? It takes more than an on-chain transaction. It doesn't happen instantly. The problem remains; the transaction isn't settled immediately. If only we could come up with a solution to this. 

Note that even 10 Dogecoin confirmations are not nearly as secure as a single Bitcoin confirmation given the far reduced hashrate of Dogecoin. If you are transacting an amount you would want to wait for 6 Bitcoin transactions for, then you should be waiting for several hundred Dogecoin confirmations.

I ignore franky1 in threads like these since he just repeats the same nonsense over and over, but this quote is actually hilarious. So his solution is to open a channel multi-sig wallet with the merchant ahead of time, and then after we have decided on how much money each of us is going to take out of that channel wallet, we broadcast a final settlement withdrawal transaction? What a revolutionary idea! What about, to make things even easier, we leave the channel wallet open between shopping trips, so we don't have to open a new one each time? Amazing!

We should come up a snappy name for this idea. I propose "Thunder".

Exactly. You should neither accept 1 confirmation as a settled transaction, especially in Dogecoin; there are lots of stale blocks. The security of each confirmation drops when the block interval decreases. I find it justified to ask more than 10 confirmations if you're moving huge amounts.

Great, now combine this with payment channels, atomic and trustless multihop contracts in a peer-to-peer network and you've got Lightning! What you describe requires to make two on-chain transactions; one depositing my money on the multi-sig address and another withdrawing the change. I find it inefficient to transact once with two transactions.

or stick with bitcoin. and instead:
a. accept zero-confirm non rbf
b.  buy one of his giftcards as you walk/drive to their store..
c.  deposit funds into an address of a merchant upfront,
d.  use multisig with merchant upfront and then sign off on a transaction with the merchant at the cashier desk.. that broadcasts
that way you cant RBF/double spend without their signature of any possible second spend you attempt

its the same idea as your altnet.. but without all the flaws.. yep actually performed on the blockchain instead of holding onto and not broadcasting unconfirmed transactions

yep your altnet is one step worse then zero confirm transactions. because they dont even broadcast the transaction that intends to give the merchant a utxo with value dedicated to them.. (adding in all the other flaws of the altnet that can hinder the possibility of the merchant ever getting his intended utxo value)

oh and even the altnet devs have lost value in their altnet more so than the complaints of broadcast zeroconfirms ever has

They are instant because they are either centralized or insecure.

Neither Litecoin nor Dogecoin solve this issue.

The block times of these coins are 2.5 minutes and 1 minute respectively. This is till not fast enough for a point of sale transaction, which needs to be instant. Even 1 minute for a confirmation is too long for any retailer with a queue of a few people waiting. Further, a 1 minute confirmation time means a large increase in the number of stale blocks, which means waiting far longer than 1 minute anyway to ensure the block you are looking at isn't replaced for a competing block at the same height.

As I said above, the main solution is to either accept zero confirmation non-RBF transactions for small values or to use Lightning.

BTC is feasible for many things. but whats not obvious to most is that the OP is trying to be subtle with hints of bitcoin being useless for daily use stuff(not his first carousal ride on his merry go round). so that he can subtly hint and suggest other altnets as solutions

recently he was trying to blame bitcoiners for not spending value to lobby governments to stop asking exchanges to perform KYC. even though a smarter person than him knows that the point of KYC is about tax, laundering, crime and terrorist prevention. which no government would decide to take a blind eye to and drop KYC. yet oops, it must be(in his view) bitcoiners fault why exchanges are asking for KYC due to lack of confidence in the bitcoin community having any desires of privacy. thus then advertising that people should move other to things like ethereum to then 'de-fi'
heck he was even trying to raise the anger into making people stop using exchanges which would cause a price crash on bitcoin.. how obvious is that .. too obvious.

he is trying many subtle and not so subtle ways to make people think bitcoin is not useful in peoples daily lives. and that manipulation has not gone un-noticed

i guarantee you within a couple weeks he will make another hypothetical scenario where he pretends that he found another flaw that can benefit from people using a different network
(he and his chums dont like it when i out their campaigns)

the game of advertising altnets has got so ramped up that even in this topic oeleo and blackhatcoiner are pretending to be opposing view points but subtly they are on the same side.. trying to hide their allegiances of an altnet

blackhatcoiner is just less subtle about his preference of altnets. at first i thought oeleo was maybe leaving his chum group and actually becoming a bitcoiner, but his subtle schemes have not been that convincing because he still advertises his favoured altnet as top of his list possible "solutions", pretending the altnet(in many topics) is bitcoin and there is no difference between using the altnet and using bitcoin.. (facepalm)


sorry but im sticking with bitcoin

In a rush or in a long queue where people are waiting and some are probably even irritated already, nothing can defeat cash. Cash is the most efficient payment option if you are in a hurry. I have experienced this many times. It often irritates me when I'm in a hurry in the grocery store or in the department store and the person in front of me pays in card, either in debit or credit. It takes a while. They need to insert and reinsert the card, sometimes type and retype the PIN, issue a separate receipt, etc. If it were done with cash, it would be very quick.

BTC isn't a feasible solution currently to your query op primarily due to the issues that you highlighted yourself. Altcoins like LTC, Doge etc are better solutions, but most people don't completely trust them.

This is why FIAT will always be the primary currency while popular cryptocurrencies like BTC, LTC etc could serve as feasible secondary options as long as people are willing to trust them.

Trust in such cryptocurrencies is slowly and steadily building up over time(Eg: Recent war led to many people relying on crypto instead of their local FIAT).

Unless a better solution is found, off chain transaction is the only option over here. Or used a centralized service that will allow you to spend bitcoin instantly through offchain transaction. Like those bitcoin credit cards where you pay with bitcoin using your card and the merchant can opt to either receive in fiat or bitcoin.
No system is perfect yet. Right now if they want to use crypto currencies, they can use other altcoins that has almost instant confirmation time.
Fiat is used for crime too. Does it scare a lot of people away?

right now, it is not practical to pay bitcoin if you are just paying few bucks for your item. but i can very well agree with what you gave as an example, cross-border transactions. in that case, you don't need third party to execute your transaction but you can do it on your own and even setting how much fee you will pay. if you are not in a hurry, you can pay at a minimal cost. whereas, if you use WU or any other remittance company, you will pay a hefty amount and it would take time before it will be received. now, if the other party knows how to deal with BTC, you can easily send it to him without interruption of 3rd party and no paperworks needed.
now, in the case of paying BTC during rush hour or of that sort, i don't know if it is practical because you still need to wait, depending on the merchant's requirement. i can understand if there is a different queue for crypto payment, which i can say that there won't be any line for most stores, which you can take advantage of.

They must be small businesses. I know none that does it, although I only know two stores in my area country that do accept it, in general. 

We don't use gold as currency for lots of reasons other than deflation. For instance, it's not easily transferable, divisible, verifiable. On the other hand there are plenty of reasons why you should use Bitcoin; from those I mentioned to privacy, censorship-resistance, transparency and nearly zero-cost transactions.

This is false. I can create a transaction, even with RBF disabled, and bribe miner(s) not to take it into consideration while it will appear in everyone's mempool.

well this is a problem that has been discussed for years, bitcoin needs to be very fast to be useful in a situation where the person wants to pay something and is in a hurry because there are more people in line to make payments, in my country for example in every corner has a long queue to make a payment and people complain a lot when someone else takes time to make payment, bitcoin would not be useful in that situation, it would just make people from my country be fighting each other

I personally  don't see the need to getting  on a hurry in making a transaction either by the sender or the receiver because if any mistake is observed it will cost more than it will pays and such mistakes in cryptocurrency are mostly not correctible,  so why the rush? The sender must be willing  to sacrifice the little patience needed and same as the receiver  must first confirm the reception before further endorsement,  considering the fiat system,  if a transaction  is not confirmed first there will not be any further procedure  to make a purchase and this traditional system is what we all have been using right from time even before bitcoin comes in place,  moreover this cryptocurrency is more far secured and faster than the fiat banking system,  so why the rush?   

Once the transaction is unconfirmed in the recipients wallet there will be no need for panic because definitely the transaction will be confirmed and verified. and on average it takes 10 minutes for a single transaction to get confirmed so depending on the number of transaction on the mempool  it could even be faster than most than fiat transfers

Bitcoin first solved the issue of double spending by sending all transaction to a network of volunteer miners who ensures each transaction is been spent by the real owner and the also that the spender has enough output to initiate a new input

Fiat too can pose it's own delay in transaction mostly due to poor internet access or unnecessary transaction delay. For in situation of long queues bitcoin could be a faster option

This is the reason that I have concluded long back itself that bitcoin is not for transaction but only for settlement. Unfortunately (and not sure unintentionally as well) Mr. Satoshi has designed bitcoin in way not suitable for day to day spending; here are the few proof for that:

1. Deflation: Gold is not in use for super market spending then why bitcoin?
2. 1 MB block: Segwit may go effective less in next few years which will emphasize that we should not try to spend bitcoin for unnecessary things but only for life's essentials. Because, it is an asset class.
3. 10 minutes block interval: It is not a concern when spending bitcoin once in a while.

At present, according to my friends and I, we usually choose cryptocurrency payment in large transactions and cross-border transactions I don't think cryptocurrency has any advantages in micro payment. It can be said that it's not very convenient.

Younger people feel more attached to digital marvels of the world because they were growing up, having them around, and so there's no distinction between real and virtual for them. I'm glad someone's asking around about Bitcoin payments. It won't change anything immediately, but it can be a way of slowly showing that there's a demand for it and thus increasing a chance of one day getting a positive answer to such questions. But yes, there are technical difficulties with making it go through, unless we're talking about a system of custodial wallets being used both by customers and by merchants, and in that case it can basically work off-chain.