Please answer 3 technical questions - page 4.

TookDk

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1062

One coin to rule them all

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:48:04 PM

Why are you too proud to admit that the Bitcoin micropayment system is inferior to cash (in terms of time to confirmation of the transaction)?

No absolutely not, I use cash from time to time, and it can be be faster than a bitcoin transaction.

I respect that you want this topic to be on a technical level, but since you ask so directly then will I have to state that I do not find cash superior, it has a fundamental flaw, it is a fiat based system, which I am strongly against. I would have no problem making micro payment with somethings else, as long as it has an intrinsic value.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: newIndia on January 10, 2015, 06:52:53 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:48:04 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:24:54 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:16:09 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

The answer to your question (2) is "yes", you have unfortunate misunderstood how bitcoin works.

Cash has obvious problems, to mention a few:
1. You have to trust the government which issue them.
2. False money in circulations.
3. Personal safety risk when carry cash.
4. Biological hazzard, bacterial and virus.
5. Difficult to use cross border.
6. Not feasible for international trades.
7. Not convenient for large trades.
8.
9.
10.
11.

I didn't mention cash in question 2. Yet now I "have unfortunate [sic.] misunderstood how bitcoin works".

Why are you too proud to admit that the Bitcoin micropayment system is inferior to cash (in terms of time to confirmation of the transaction)?

Look buddy... bitcoin do have some shortcomings. But, those you are pointing out are not the ones. Those are simply result of your lack of understanding.

The average consumer and the average retailer don't care about the techie geeky stuff that you find so important. They want an instant exchange that works.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rannasha on January 10, 2015, 06:41:11 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:32:04 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 10, 2015, 06:14:39 PM

Go ahead, I did know nothing about bitcoin a year ago.

Like I said, I'm not an econometric expert (though you seem to be an expert on Bitcoin).

At one extreme: free mining is available anywhere on earth (phase 5)

At the other: all miners are switched off (phase 0).

In the middle somewhere, we range from:
phase 1: just a few miners are functioning (the big value/important transactions get mined, the small transactions aren't worth it)
phase 2: a good few miners are functioning (the system is only good for big and medium transactions)
phase 3: lots of miners functioning (everyone can send BTC about, but the small guys are beginning to feel it)
phase 4: a plentiful supply of miners (pretty much everyone gets to transact with hardly any restriction)

- The days of 4 are over
- We're in 3 and will be moving into 2. Silicon has stalled and electricity isn't getting any cheaper.

To calculate the timing on the transition from 5-> 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0 would require much more detailed analysis.

You're still getting it wrong. The number of miners has no effect on how many transactions can be processed. Whether it's 1 miner or 1 million miners, it's all the same.

The only real limit to the number of transactions that's currently in place is the maximum size of each block, but there are plans to increase this and so far there's not enough activity yet to hit this maximum other than in exceptional spikes.

edit:

Quote

I think this side-discussion is irrelevant to the original question. It's obvious the answer is "No" - you cannot get below 10 seconds. This has very serious practical implications for the deployment of Bitcoin at a global scale.

You can get below 10 seconds when you accept 0-confirmation transactions. For everyday purchases, this is perfectly fine as it is impractical and uneconomic for an attacker to try and profit from double spending those. Payment processors such as BitPay and Coinbase already accept 0-conf transactions and most merchants that accept Bitcoin-payments use one of those two processors.

For very large payments, you will have to wait for one or more confirmations, but these payments are almost always for things that are not delivered instantly (cars, houses, etc...).

Hi Rannasha,

Thank you for your insight. I will need to read more on the bold bit.

newIndia

legendary

Activity: 2198

Merit: 1049

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:48:04 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:24:54 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:16:09 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

The answer to your question (2) is "yes", you have unfortunate misunderstood how bitcoin works.

Cash has obvious problems, to mention a few:
1. You have to trust the government which issue them.
2. False money in circulations.
3. Personal safety risk when carry cash.
4. Biological hazzard, bacterial and virus.
5. Difficult to use cross border.
6. Not feasible for international trades.
7. Not convenient for large trades.
8.
9.
10.
11.

I didn't mention cash in question 2. Yet now I "have unfortunate [sic.] misunderstood how bitcoin works".

Why are you too proud to admit that the Bitcoin micropayment system is inferior to cash (in terms of time to confirmation of the transaction)?

Look buddy... bitcoin do have some shortcomings. But, those you are pointing out are not the ones. Those are simply result of your lack of understanding.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:24:54 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:16:09 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

The answer to your question (2) is "yes", you have unfortunate misunderstood how bitcoin works.

Cash has obvious problems, to mention a few:
1. You have to trust the government which issue them.
2. False money in circulations.
3. Personal safety risk when carry cash.
4. Biological hazzard, bacterial and virus.
5. Difficult to use cross border.
6. Not feasible for international trades.
7. Not convenient for large trades.
8.
9.
10.
11.

I didn't mention cash in question 2. Yet now I "have unfortunate [sic.] misunderstood how bitcoin works".

Why are you too proud to admit that the Bitcoin micropayment system is inferior to cash (in terms of time to confirmation of the transaction)?

TookDk

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1062

One coin to rule them all

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:38:37 PM

It's obvious the answer is "No"

Are you trolling?

The transaction time is almost instant, as gmaxwell pointed out.

Rannasha

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:32:04 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 10, 2015, 06:14:39 PM

Go ahead, I did know nothing about bitcoin a year ago.

Like I said, I'm not an econometric expert (though you seem to be an expert on Bitcoin).

At one extreme: free mining is available anywhere on earth (phase 5)

At the other: all miners are switched off (phase 0).

In the middle somewhere, we range from:
phase 1: just a few miners are functioning (the big value/important transactions get mined, the small transactions aren't worth it)
phase 2: a good few miners are functioning (the system is only good for big and medium transactions)
phase 3: lots of miners functioning (everyone can send BTC about, but the small guys are beginning to feel it)
phase 4: a plentiful supply of miners (pretty much everyone gets to transact with hardly any restriction)

- The days of 4 are over
- We're in 3 and will be moving into 2. Silicon has stalled and electricity isn't getting any cheaper.

To calculate the timing on the transition from 5-> 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0 would require much more detailed analysis.

You're still getting it wrong. The number of miners has no effect on how many transactions can be processed. Whether it's 1 miner or 1 million miners, it's all the same.

The only real limit to the number of transactions that's currently in place is the maximum size of each block, but there are plans to increase this and so far there's not enough activity yet to hit this maximum other than in exceptional spikes.

edit:

Quote

I think this side-discussion is irrelevant to the original question. It's obvious the answer is "No" - you cannot get below 10 seconds. This has very serious practical implications for the deployment of Bitcoin at a global scale.

You can get below 10 seconds when you accept 0-confirmation transactions. For everyday purchases, this is perfectly fine as it is impractical and uneconomic for an attacker to try and profit from double spending those. Payment processors such as BitPay and Coinbase already accept 0-conf transactions and most merchants that accept Bitcoin-payments use one of those two processors.

For very large payments, you will have to wait for one or more confirmations, but these payments are almost always for things that are not delivered instantly (cars, houses, etc...).

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rannasha on January 10, 2015, 06:29:30 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:16:09 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

Transaction time with credit cards is not better than with Bitcoin. Both are (almost) instant when it comes to processing the transaction, but the actual confirmation can take as long as 90 days as CC payments can be reverted during this period for a variety of reasons.

Cash is obviously instant and irreversible, but comes with a bunch of its own drawbacks.

I think this side-discussion is irrelevant to the original question. It's obvious the answer is "No" - you cannot get below 10 seconds. This has very serious practical implications for the deployment of Bitcoin at a global scale.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: shorena on January 10, 2015, 06:14:39 PM

Go ahead, I did know nothing about bitcoin a year ago.

Like I said, I'm not an econometric expert (though you seem to be an expert on Bitcoin).

At one extreme: free mining is available anywhere on earth (phase 5)

At the other: all miners are switched off (phase 0).

In the middle somewhere, we range from:
phase 1: just a few miners are functioning (the big value/important transactions get mined, the small transactions aren't worth it)
phase 2: a good few miners are functioning (the system is only good for big and medium transactions)
phase 3: lots of miners functioning (everyone can send BTC about, but the small guys are beginning to feel it)
phase 4: a plentiful supply of miners (pretty much everyone gets to transact with hardly any restriction)

- The days of 4 are over
- We're in 3 and will be moving into 2. Silicon has stalled and electricity isn't getting any cheaper.

To calculate the timing on the transition from 5-> 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0 would require much more detailed analysis.

Rannasha

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:16:09 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

Transaction time with credit cards is not better than with Bitcoin. Both are (almost) instant when it comes to processing the transaction, but the actual confirmation can take as long as 90 days as CC payments can be reverted during this period for a variety of reasons.

Cash is obviously instant and irreversible, but comes with a bunch of its own drawbacks.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4200

Merit: 8441

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 05:44:15 PM

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

Okay, so not only do you not search first, you apparently choose not to read: I just explained that the energy used by mining at a given security level is unrelated to the volume of transactions. It is the same regardless if there is one transaction or one hundred million transactions. The amount of energy related to the count of transactions is zero. So, there you go: If you insist on getting a binary answer to your ill poised question instead of learning, the answer is zero.

Quote

The consumer and the retailer don't care about the technical nuance you've described (that a transaction is separate to a confirmation).

They may well not, and so what of it?

TookDk

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1062

One coin to rule them all

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:16:09 PM

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

The answer to your question (2) is "yes", you have unfortunate misunderstood how bitcoin works.

Cash has obvious problems, to mention a few:
1. You have to trust the government which issue them.
2. False money in circulations.
3. Personal safety risk when carry cash.
4. Biological hazzard, bacterial and virus.
5. Difficult to use cross border.
6. Not feasible for international trades.
7. Not convenient for large trades.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

I find your rationale unconvincing. I remain very skeptical that:

- Bitcoin is a usable real-world currency (a world where the majority of human-human transactions are around the $10 mark)
- The energy required to keep the network going is sustainable
- The network will remain decentralised

,particularly when cryptocurrency technology has moved on (a lot) since 2008.

I would argue that Bitcoin is outdated and impractical.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 06:06:49 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1499

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

-snip-
Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

The stolen CC I pay my coffee with is certainly anonymous. Just because the plastic card has a name on it does not mean I am giving away my personal information.

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

Payment processors could handle transactions like these, but honestly most of the time I pay for coffee they dont even check if the money I give them is real. Its a risk they are willing to take because the majority of the customers are honest. Frankly most of the customers are honest because they want to come back and as someone that once took a fake 200 € bill: my boss didnt care. Its like the robery that happens statistically once every X. You calculate with it and adjust your prices accordingly or get insurance that covers these things.

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:06:23 PM

-snip-
I guess transaction fees will have to go up to incentivise the miners? It's not a problem right now, but in a 10bn people doing x10 transactions a day, how much of a problem would it be? Can a farmer pay a supplier $5 with his mobile without having to incurr 10%/20%/30%? transaction fees?

The more payments are made, the smaller the fee per payment. Assuming the blocksize is not a limit in your scenario.

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:06:23 PM

I would love to see an econometric analysis of this based on where we are now and where we're going if we keep going at the same rate (factoring in price, market cap, price of electricity, mining difficulty, transaction fees, etc.) But I don't have the knowledge or expertise.

Go ahead, I did know nothing about bitcoin a year ago.

TookDk

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1062

One coin to rule them all

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 06:00:02 PM

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: johoe on January 10, 2015, 05:54:25 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 05:44:15 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 10, 2015, 05:35:58 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 05:03:11 PM

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

The energy requirement for processing a transaction are very small and are completely unrelated to mining ASICs. Mining ASICS do not process transactions. They provably expend energy to make reversal of the history of transactions infeasible and for a given security level consume the same amount of energy regardless of the transaction level.

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

The energy spent is approximately half the mining profit (since people would spend more energy to mine if you can make money from it). So it roughly depends on how much the people are willing to pay for the transactions (at least at the time where most mining profits come from transaction fees).

This is not a technical question but an economic one.

I guess transaction fees will have to go up to incentivise the miners? It's not a problem right now, but in a 10bn people doing x10 transactions a day, how much of a problem would it be? Can a farmer pay a supplier $5 with his mobile without having to incurr 10%/20%/30%? transaction fees?

I would love to see an econometric analysis of this based on where we are now and where we're going if we keep going at the same rate (factoring in price, market cap, price of electricity, mining difficulty, transaction fees, etc.) But I don't have the knowledge or expertise.

Eamorr

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: TookDk on January 10, 2015, 05:50:28 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 05:44:15 PM

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners.

That is a common misunderstanding.
There is no need for confirmation for micro transaction.
To buy a cup of coffee or a meal does not need confirmation.
Buying a house or a car, then would a couple of confirmations properly be a good idea before the buyer drive away with the car.

Pay attentions to gmaxwell analogy with credit cards, then will it be more clear to you how bitcoin works.

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

johoe

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 241

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 05:44:15 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 10, 2015, 05:35:58 PM

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 05:03:11 PM

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

The energy requirement for processing a transaction are very small and are completely unrelated to mining ASICs. Mining ASICS do not process transactions. They provably expend energy to make reversal of the history of transactions infeasible and for a given security level consume the same amount of energy regardless of the transaction level.

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

The energy spent is approximately half the mining profit (since people would spend more energy to mine if you can make money from it). So it roughly depends on how much the people are willing to pay for the transactions (at least at the time where most mining profits come from transaction fees).

This is not a technical question but an economic one.

TookDk

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1062

One coin to rule them all

Quote from: Eamorr on January 10, 2015, 05:44:15 PM

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners.

That is a common misunderstanding.
There is no need for confirmation for micro transaction.
To buy a cup of coffee or a meal does not need confirmation.
Buying a house or a car, then would a couple of confirmations properly be a good idea before the buyer drive away with the car.

Pay attentions to gmaxwell analogy with credit cards, then will it be more clear to you how bitcoin works.

Topic: Please answer 3 technical questions - page 4. (Read 6435 times)