Topic: The next bitcoin bubble will be massive (Read 15323 times)

the last 3 posts said: use escrow.

I've been pondering making one for a long time.

Is there already one using 2 of 3 signature transactions to avoid escrow to be able to run with the money?

Should I go for it?

tbh: 5 weeks ago I messaged one of these guys on ebay to negotiate a better price for 4 arduino nano clones by going around ebay (I know, against ebay policy). He made a good price and I paypaled the money. No product arrived and no communication. I must say I'm glad he didn't take bitcoins. Now I can do a chargeback on paypal (hopefully they wont notice I violated eBay policy)... not possible with BTC.

Those guys sending stuff from HK or wherever are great: competitive prices and often good products. However, I don't think I would send BTC to them unless I had previously made good business with one of them.

Bitcoin technology contains more complex forms of transactions, for example, transactions with a third-party escrow function. We are currently not using bitcoin technology fully.

tbh: 5 weeks ago I messaged one of these guys on ebay to negotiate a better price for 4 arduino nano clones by going around ebay (I know, against ebay policy). He made a good price and I paypaled the money. No product arrived and no communication. I must say I'm glad he didn't take bitcoins. Now I can do a chargeback on paypal (hopefully they wont notice I violated eBay policy)... not possible with BTC.

Devs will find a way. Focus will shift from the meteoric rise to BTC's application anyway at a certain moment. Remember, it is still beta.

I will start to spend BTC when the Chinese electronics sellers start to accept them.

she likes her paper dollars: http://youtu.be/cBJWLAKpfY4

I think the most fundamental issue with Bitcoin is the lack of scalability, and very long lead times of any planned scalability enhancements. If Bitcoin's actual use (number of transactions) grows along with the price increase, we'll hit the 1M block size limit at around $300 to $1000. Of course bitcoin won't lose its usefulness at that point, it will just mean that only transactions with very high fees will have a chance to get included in "the next block".

I think the claims that Bitcoin would provide cheaper transactions than the alternatives were misguided to begin with.

I think the most fundamental issue with Bitcoin is the lack of scalability, and very long lead times of any planned scalability enhancements. If Bitcoin's actual use (number of transactions) grows along with the price increase, we'll hit the 1M block size limit at around $300 to $1000. Of course bitcoin won't lose its usefulness at that point, it will just mean that only transactions with very high fees will have a chance to get included in "the next block".

I think the claims that Bitcoin would provide cheaper transactions than the alternatives were misguided to begin with.

I think the same. Perhaps some trust-based micro-payment system on top of bitcoin could solve this problem. Bitcoin could then be used for regular (for example, daily) rebalancing payments. Bitcoin would, of course, still be used directly for large payments.

Today the Bitcoin network is restricted to a sustained rate of 7 tps by some artificial limits. These were put in place to stop people from ballooning the size of the block chain before the network and community was ready for it. Once those limits are lifted, the maximum transaction rate will go up significantly.

The core Bitcoin network can scale to much higher transaction rates than are seen today, assuming that nodes in the network are primarily running on high end servers rather than desktops. Bitcoin was designed to support lightweight clients that only process small parts of the block chain (see simplified payment verification below for more details on this). A configuration in which the vast majority of users sync lightweight clients to more powerful backbone nodes is capable of scaling to millions of users and tens of thousands of transactions per second.

Let's assume an average rate of 2000tps, so just VISA. Transactions vary in size from about 0.2 kilobytes to over 1 kilobyte, but it's averaging half a kilobyte today.
That means that you need to keep up with around 8 megabits/second of transaction data (2000tps * 512 bytes) / 1024 bytes in a kilobyte / 1024 kilobytes in a megabyte = 0.97 megabytes per second * 8 = 7.8 megabits/second.
This sort of bandwidth is already common for even residential connections today, and is certainly at the low end of what colocation providers would expect to provide you with.

I think the most fundamental issue with Bitcoin is the lack of scalability, and very long lead times of any planned scalability enhancements. If Bitcoin's actual use (number of transactions) grows along with the price increase, we'll hit the 1M block size limit at around $300 to $1000. Of course bitcoin won't lose its usefulness at that point, it will just mean that only transactions with very high fees will have a chance to get included in "the next block".

I think the claims that Bitcoin would provide cheaper transactions than the alternatives were misguided to begin with.

Excellent prediction, right on target, except for "never-ending". There are no never-ending bull runs. But I take that as a benevolent exaggeration, and so you should be admired, calian.

Of course there is always the suspicion that, with hindsight, we can now pick out just those predictions that turned out to be correct by sheer luck.