Topic: Visa’s top-secret Operations Center / Bitcoin is so much cooler & cheaper :) - page 2. (Read 6572 times)

Hopefully only merged-mining operations will need to deal with such volumes. Client-oriented systems would be able to focus on just one blockchain (or just a few blockchains). A faster blockchain than bitcoin could take up much of the small-value transaction volume, leaving the original bitcoin blockchain for large high value transactions. Hopefully bitcoins will be worth about $40,000 or more each, and maybe not used much in day to day transactions, which would fall to one or more of the lower-value blockchains...

-MarkM-

Would someone versed in scalability issues please chime in?  Can Bitcoin network function at such rates - equivalent to 1.5 million transactions per block?

Ha, someone will implement my idea eventually. They will just call it their own idea when they do it. That's fine. In true Keynesian spirit, I welcome them.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.807106

I don't think this implementation will come to anything worthwhile, but there is plenty of time for new and better copycats to come on board.

LOL. You have all the solutions, but none of the skills? You know everything but can't do anything? All this about the one true solution, but there's no code? Those who can't do around here, buy. If it's such a great solution, show us the code.

Arrogance is probably the worst enemy of security.

Cool story. Have you discovered anarcho-capitalism yet? Come visit my website if you're interested.

It is up to someone with programming/cryptography skills to implement my solution. I am willing to work with them to improve upon it if desired. I feel that I have done a lot just by putting answers out there for anyone to use. I cannot reasonably do any more than this.

Then solve all Bitcoins problems already.

It does solve pretty much everything... It is tiring for me to listen to people fumble around with other solutions as if they were promising in any way.

I support the idea of proof of stake but your insistence that proof of stake solves everything in every thread about every future risk of Bitcoin is .... tiring.  You do a good job of driving away supporters.

You have no idea what fees will be, nor is there any way of knowing. It is not a moot point because bitcoin could avoid this issue entirely if it incorporated better design principles.

Fees in excess of those charged by VISA are necessary to maintain bitcoin's current security level.  Of course, fees like this will kill bitcoin. Maintenance of the current security level is not attainable or desirable using the present technology.

The other option is to relax security to economize on verification costs. It is not clear how lax security can get before security problems themselves kill bitcoin.

Bitcoin's survival depends on finding a "sweet spot" where a sufficient level of security is available at txn verification costs considerably lower than VISA's. I highly doubt there is a sweet spot using the current technology.

The technology will have to be reworked to make building a secure blockchain less costly. In particular, there is absolutely no need for hardware to be purchased or electricity to be consumed in significant amounts in order to verify txns. Severe inefficiencies associated with proof-of-work would be obvious to any micro-economic theorist. I'm not claiming to be a special guy. Anyone in my discipline (excluding nutjobs such as Austrian economists), would give the same answers. The fact that we ended up with proof-of-work is due to Satoshi's failure to seek advice from experts outside of computer science and cryptography. It is purely a mistake and should be fixed.

Thanks for the book.  I only educated myself in this stuff in 2007 after Ron Paul said... "This monetary system is unfair it transfers wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich."  during a debate and when no one corrected him not even the TV News, my JAW DROPPED. I thought he was liar and just another scum bag politician wanting to screw us over after we voted for him, when I researched him my jaw dropped again.

At that point I realized I knew nothing about the monetary system and I started to learn.  When I read that the money was created out of debt I could not believe it who would be dumb enough to allow this system to exist.

Anyhow after my Neo "I don't believe it" moment I dumped all my retirement accounts and was in 100% gold and silver and tried to solve our currency problem via software on my own, but could not come up with anything.

So when I saw Bitcoin it was exactly what I would have invented if I knew about Proof of Work.

From that link:

I've been looking for a post to interject this story. It seems that man has been carrying tokens of value a little longer than that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120323134409.htm

For more on what DavinciJ15 is talking about, check out this excellent book by Detlev Schlichter.  Mr. Schlichter does a good job of debunking much of what you read in the financial press about fiat currency and an ever increasing money supply being a good thing.

BubbleBoy is a good person.  How do I know?  Only a good person would believe the government will do the right thing with direct access to a monetary printing press.  I'm sure you would do the right thing but historically we never really gotten good people in government.

There is no way that bitcoin could survive that long without incorporating proof-of-stake to replace proof-of-work. The scenario where bitcoin grows to become some vast resource consuming monster is not plausible. The solution is on the table, if bitcoin seems workable in the long-run, someone will come along and implement it.

OK, I see your point now. However the seigniorage is the fraudulent part of Visa.  {In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual;} The credit system does not inform the individuals that the credit is created with no cost to the bank, thus interest paid on balances owed makes you a free slave, also this diminishes the value of all other currency in existence.

Some may say... Whats wrong with this system?  

Well if you create wealth you added to society by creating something people wanted or needed and you can spend or save the effort in another product of the free market, historically such a product has been gold or silver.  If you loan the gold you are effectively transferring the work you provided and saved to a debtor, (unlike loaning out unlimited money) if the debtor did not pay you back no extra value was added to the economy.  If a bank is not paid back they must pay back the outstanding balance thus same as if we used gold, so you may ask where is the fraud?   However the fraud is the banks know that's not what happens.  The banks ether gets A BAIL OUT by getting your government to go into debt, (taxing you to pay their bad loans) or by going into debt them selves to cover the loses, or the debt is marked on their books as still good (aka "mark to model").

Thus I must agree with 1000x efficiency of VISA if you get money (AKA stored labor and production) for free.

However if you include the real cost of the free labor and production its not very efficient.

its what good looking russian women use to come to the US.

What is Visa?

The math is fine: if 10 million coins are in existence, in order to reach annual Visa volumes a coin needs to be worth 40000$. Proportionately less after more coins are minted, proportionately more if the payment volume rises. The mining revenue would rise to 1 million USD/block in 2013 - 2016, and the miners will use those earnings for rigs, electricity and profits.

The 1000x apparent inefficiency as compared to Visa has nothing to do with the actual efficiency of the Bitcoin payment network, rather to the particular way coin minting is performed. If Bitcoin achieves Visa levels after the initial coin distribution phase is completed (a few decades from now), the mining revenues will be much more modest. The 1000x factor is true today, and will halve every four years.


You are not accounting for the hidden revenue that seigniorage generates. Since Visa works with national currencies it does not have this revenue stream, so all it's markup is passed on the the consumers.

When an investor buys bitcoins for the first time, he enables miners to burn those resources in their mining rigs and mine a shiny new bitcoin for him. The resources are forever wasted but apparently he still "has the money" in new bitcoins - a curious case of having one's cake and eating it too. Conversely when Bitcoin will fail (as all human endeavors eventually do), someone will be left holding worthless bits. So from the point of view of the participants in Bitcoin, the markup  is deffered until the system is closed, whenever that may be - tomorrow or one thousand years from now.


From the point of view of the society, we are better off avoiding a proof-of-work monetary system, like Bitcoin or gold. If we can convince our governments to issue sound, non-inflationary fiat money we can put those wasted resources to better use today. It's travesty of our times that the resources saved by fiat money, instead of making the society richer, are siphoned by the rent seeking bankster elite.

Source: Fake Wikileaks

Thanks, in (main) part, to the fees we collect from our growing customer base, VISA

---

Cost of a Bitcoin building in 2010: $0
Cost of a Bitcoin Building in 2012: $0
Cost of a Bitcoin Building in 2030: $0
If Bitcoin ends the FED: Priceless!