Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19918. (Read 26608194 times)

the bug is strong with this one.  

That's an assertion, not an argument. Money is simply the most marketable (liquid) commodity. In many languages the word "silver" is a synonym for money. It's the thing that eliminates the need for a double coincidence of wants. Using altcoins is basically the same as going back to barter. That's taking money backwards, not forwards.

Gold is money. Everything else is a scam.

Eh, no. Because the issue is pretty much solvable.


First, most cryptocurrencies are based on the bitcoin protocol. So bitcoin is still in use, as a protocol, even if it isn't as a currency for a particular transaction.

If I use LTC, I still use the bitcoin protocol. The elements are pretty much the same.

Second, in some of the options, like having an exchange account, you can either use BTC, or not. For example you can accept 100 different altcoins and have it set to be converted to BTC on arrival and then make 1 fat BTC withdrawal in the end of the day (if you are a merchant). So you might have gotten paid for 300 coffees with DOGE, these money go to the payment processor or exchange, and in the end of the day you get, say, 2 BTC.


Code-wise it shouldn't be that difficult. It might be a lot of work but in essence it is a decentralized asset exchange, specifically for cryptocurrencies/altcoins, merging functionalities of different wallets in order to transact in multiple blockchains.

It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first.

don't use it for crap, like ads/spam, dice with 0,0000000001 tx, and so. Do you trade physical gold daily? Me neither.

Are you trolling? That's a dumb argument.
 1) a 20MB block would not automatically mean all new blocks would be 20MB. We have a 1 MB limit now and most blocks are less than half that.
2) a large block runs the risk of getting orphaned because it propagates slower than a smaller block.  Miners know this and have an incentive to keep them small regardless of what the upper limit is.

You want a higher fee structure yesterday? Apparently you were sick the day they taught economics in economics class.  You don't gain business by raising prices, especially in a highly competitive environment. That's how you LOSE business.

i hope bidder don't think i'm selling 1BTC + the coin starting at 0.001BTC  

these wallets are VERY secure

Finally someone get it  

HODL Bitcoin spend fiat !

Neither me. They can be complementary especially if there is an huge crypto success worldwide. And still a single one could remain a sort of gold standard (if it's not sabotaged).

Really what it sounds like. Must be missing something.

there not funded....

selling fancy wallets

Looks like a little pullback before advance.

Trade opportunity coming up.

u lost faith?  

Guys do you think that the price of BTC will go to $500 or more before March next year?

So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!

I think you're missing the context. That being AlexGR's claim that altcoins are a solution to Bitcoin's blockchain bloat. My point was that they're only making Bitcoin less relevant (people use alts, so they don't use Bitcoin as much).
I'm not against alts at all.

It can fit because it has a 1mb limit in place, and not, say, 20mb. It would require just 50 blocks to fill 1 gb if someone made a script to do just that.

You cannot have a multibillion dollar currency that has such an issue looming over its head.

If you have a currency where someone can throw 1 btc in fees to fill a 20mb block, then with 144btc spent you get around 3gb of bloat per day.

In a month you will need 4320 BTCs to fill 86.4gb, and in a year you'll have exceeded 1 TB for a cost of 51840 BTCs (21mn USD at current prices, much less in terms of USD if the government has hacked them or confiscated them).

Even if one is paying the fees, and is not basing his approach on waiting to confirm a lot of low fee or no fee transactions, the price is way too low for destroying a multibillion dollar currency / making it unusable / rendering it centralized.

If I were threatened by BTC and had the resources, I'd go for it. It's pretty cheap compared to what you get in return (a bloated system and the perception that "ah crap, crypto is done, it can't scale because it's way too bloated). What more could I say?

What we *really* need is to fit way more transactions in the same amount of space. And we also need a much higher fee structure, implemented ...yesterday if possible.

on the contrary: it's a free market of monies, kinda crypto-Forex.
IMHO if BTC will be kept clean of spam/crap/b/s/sabotage/treason it will remain the king/most accepted. Alternatively a competitor with those attributes will emerge. End of story.

i sell physical Bitcoins