Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19921.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Fatman3001 on December 10, 2015, 11:02:33 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 10:26:35 AM

Gold = high denomination coins
Silver = medium
Copper = small

But it's a flawed analogy.

If ethereum sees more volume measured in fiat, has more uses, retains its value better, builds up a more robust ecosystem... why should we use Bitcoin?

Bitcoin isn't damned to be the digital equivalent to gold.

bitcoin is digital gold of the internet and probably always will be.
it is what it is.
not your why you'd trust your money to a bunch of geeks trying to reinvent crypto...

ethereum is a fun side show. Cheesy

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 08:54:28 AM

Scaling is not an issue right now. Not the processing of transactions. If you want to make a legitimate transaction, you'll pay a normal fee and you'll be processed in one block.

I don't know how meaningful my example is but here goes......

I actually use btc. In the past few months ~1/2 of my transactions with a normal fee were not included in the first block. My last transaction of 2 days ago was first included in the 3rd block. I used to make some transactions with no fees and those were always included in the first block.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 10:26:35 AM

Gold = high denomination coins
Silver = medium
Copper = small

But it's a flawed analogy.

If ethereum sees more volume measured in fiat, has more uses, retains its value better, builds up a more robust ecosystem... why should we use Bitcoin?

Bitcoin isn't damned to be the digital equivalent to gold.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 09:59:18 AM

-snip-
The protocol exists for all this world of opportunities. People can still use an alternate chain if they want to use the blockchain to store data, contracts, intellectual property etc etc. There is no "necessity" that it must be done on BTC's blockchain. And it won't be some kind of failure if everything doesn't fit in the BTC blockchain.

The problem is that the BTC blockchains usage isn't sufficiently established for the current crop to decide what Bitcoin is and isn't. I have great faith in Ethereum, less faith in most shitcoins. But to decide now that we're going to leave this and that to other, much more fragile ecosystems, is insane. Let's see what's possible first, what's realistic, what's sustainable, and then carve out the path forward. A rise to 8MB now isn't anything near as potentially damaging as strangling this baby in the crib. If BIP101 turns out to be more of a problem than a solution, change it. We've got a couple of years before it doubles.

Ultrafinery

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 10:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ultrafinery on December 10, 2015, 10:19:08 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 10:03:25 AM

...
Bitcoin, as a protocol, can do that. But it doesn't need to be ONE chain for everything.

What does that even mean?

Just because one hard disk doesn't fit the world's data it doesn't mean that hard disk drive was a useless invention.
We can still use multiple hard disks, even with their finite capacity limits.
Likewise, we can use multiple blockchains to store transactions and other stuff.

No, HDs aren't useless, and neither were floppies, and neither were punchcards/tapes. Curiously, all the world's data isn't stored on punchcards any more.
What you're suggesting is 'forget about HDs, we'll just use a whole bunch of punchcard systems.' Theoretically possible, though suboptimal. Sounds like you're simply trying to invent uses for the tokens you already own.

Quote

Copper? Not really. That's for zerohedgers who wana be goldbugs but ain't got the bux.

Historically it was. This can't be disputed really.

Gold = high denomination coins
Silver = medium
Copper = small

What I'm telling you is there were no lasting monetary systems using triple metal standard in recent history. Sure, almost everything was used as money at one time or another, but now even gold and silver are relics.

TERA

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Finex bids at 29.5K now.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: Ultrafinery on December 10, 2015, 10:19:08 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 10:03:25 AM

...
Bitcoin, as a protocol, can do that. But it doesn't need to be ONE chain for everything.

What does that even mean?

Just because one hard disk doesn't fit the world's data it doesn't mean that hard disk drive was a useless invention.

We can still use multiple hard disks, even with their finite capacity limits.

Likewise, we can use multiple blockchains to store transactions and other stuff.

Quote

Copper? Not really. That's for zerohedgers who wana be goldbugs but ain't got the bux.

Historically it was. This can't be disputed really.

Gold = high denomination coins
Silver = medium
Copper = small

Ultrafinery

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 10:03:25 AM

...
Bitcoin, as a protocol, can do that. But it doesn't need to be ONE chain for everything.

What does that even mean? Bitcoin as the backing in 'bitcoin gold standard'? Why not simply dispense with Bitcoin altogether, and go with a currency which works without Goldbergian kludges? Because there are Chinese chicken coops full of toasty hardware, AKA 'world's most powerful supercomputer'?

Quote

Gold was currency.
Silver was currency.
Copper was currency.

Copper? Not really. That's for zerohedgers who wana be goldbugs but ain't got the bux.

Quote from: wikip

When Gustavus' daughter and heir Christina reached maturity at 18, after a brief fling with paper-based money backed by copper—which was well received initially but soon lost credibility—she began issuing copper in lumps as large as fifteen kilograms to serve as currency. Unwieldy as they were, the copper-based monetary system worked to a fashion until the world copper price slumped. Sweden's great copper no longer commanded the premium it once had on world markets, and foreign income dried up. Relative to the rest of Europe, Sweden's people once more had become poor.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Fatman3001 on December 10, 2015, 05:54:59 AM

Quote from: oda.krell on December 10, 2015, 05:05:59 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on December 10, 2015, 12:50:26 AM

Mike Hearn's little free shit peed-in-my-pants [snip]

Way to ruin a pretty decent reputation you had here.

I'm getting the impression that an emerging bull market isn't exactly a good influence on your ego. I'm half expecting risto to drop by any moment now, posting about his latest renovation projects.

Not to mention this little nugget.

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on December 10, 2015, 12:50:26 AM

... nup, just we duh wunt mah-big-blocks massah.

I know I'm going to be accused of being too PC, but the more I look at it the more problematic it looks.

Reminds me a lot of MP.

Quote

a proposal its proponents call "segregated witness," which amounts to Jim Crow style prejudice against cryptographic signatures on the blockchain.

I'm sure SW is exactly like state-sanctioned racial oppression.

Roll Eyes

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: Ultrafinery on December 10, 2015, 09:55:31 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 09:51:09 AM

Quote from: aztecminer on December 10, 2015, 09:40:52 AM

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right?

Bitcoin, as a protocol, can do that. But it doesn't need to be ONE chain for everything.

aztecminer

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Ultrafinery on December 10, 2015, 09:55:31 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 09:51:09 AM

Quote from: aztecminer on December 10, 2015, 09:40:52 AM

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right? That's the part that appeals to people who are not laundering money/running ransomware extortion schemes/buying drugs on DNMs.
Take that away, and what's left is ...yeah, you got it -- straight-up criminal uses.

criminals who want to charge a high "transaction fee" every time someone buys something... a better word for it might be "corruption".

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: Ultrafinery on December 10, 2015, 09:55:31 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 09:51:09 AM

Quote from: aztecminer on December 10, 2015, 09:40:52 AM

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right? That's the part that appeals to people who are not laundering money/running ransomware extortion schemes/buying drugs on DNMs.
Take that away, and what's left is ...yeah, you got it -- straight-up criminal uses.

You mean it's meant to be something like "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"?

Nah, that's pie in the sky thinking.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: Fatman3001 on December 10, 2015, 09:49:46 AM

First off, if/when Bitcoin takes off for real there's going to be nerd cred to be had running a node. And terabytes of what you call bloat only makes it better.

Bloat always makes the situation worse.

Quote

Second, if a priority transaction goes significantly up in price it will be less suitable for micropayments for services like access to newspaper articles et al, especially in low-cost countries.

Not for Bitcoin the protocol, but Bitcoin as in BTC, the currency, the BTC blockchain etc.

Gold was currency.
Silver was currency.
Copper was currency.

They were in circulation simultaneously. Why didn't they only have gold or silver coins? Because each thing served a different need.

If transactions go up significantly, there is no problem in having spillover of microtransactions into bitcoin-based altcoins. Faster, cheaper and their blockchain is a far less valuable resource that can be ...discarded in the long run if it bloats to unusable levels.

Quote

Third, if you get rid of all the "dust" you get rid of a world of opportunities in the internet of things. It's way too early to limit the network in this way,

The protocol exists for all this world of opportunities. People can still use an alternate chain if they want to use the blockchain to store data, contracts, intellectual property etc etc. There is no "necessity" that it must be done on BTC's blockchain. And it won't be some kind of failure if everything doesn't fit in the BTC blockchain.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Almost there, I just need a little more push for that $500 a coin I need for Christmas presents. Let's try to have that done by Dec 20 if possible.

Ultrafinery

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 09:51:09 AM

Quote from: aztecminer on December 10, 2015, 09:40:52 AM

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right? That's the part that appeals to people who are not laundering money/running ransomware extortion schemes/buying drugs on DNMs.
Take that away, and what's left is ...yeah, you got it -- straight-up criminal uses.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: aztecminer on December 10, 2015, 09:40:52 AM

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 09:32:29 AM

And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?

Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost. This is not feasible. We can transact with Dogecoins for the lulz if we want to. It's still bitcoin-based tech. You can have 100 chains, or 1000 chains. The sky is the limit.

As for cost: In Greece, in order to conduct a bank wire from one bank acc of bank A to another bank account of bank B, it goes like cost 1 euro for sender, cost 3 euro for receiver. Total 4 euros of charge even if I transfer like 10 euros. Do you think this puts people off from transacting with the banks? No. They just don't do it for small amounts, or if they do they are using something like "offchain" transaction by using the same bank for internal transferring of one bank account to the other, which typically has zero cost.

First off, if/when Bitcoin takes off for real there's going to be nerd cred to be had running a node. And terabytes of what you call bloat only makes it better.

Second, if a priority transaction goes significantly up in price it will be less suitable for micropayments for services like access to newspaper articles et al, especially in low-cost countries.

Third, if you get rid of all the "dust" you get rid of a world of opportunities in the internet of things. It's way too early to limit the network in this way,

Ultrafinery

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: AlexGR on December 10, 2015, 09:32:29 AM

Quote from: Ultrafinery on December 10, 2015, 09:09:31 AM

...
TL;DR: Keep Bitcoin as a smaller & more uncertain version of fiat. Make sure it also becomes more expensive to transact with.
Put off solving Bitcoin's principal problems for later, because totally good enough for now.
This will really drive adoption.

And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?

If increasing the blocksize is not a solution you like, then there is no [apparent] solution. Life's like that -- some problems don't have elegant solutions.

Quote

Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost. This is not feasible. We can transact with Dogecoins for the lulz if we want to. It's still bitcoin-based tech. You can have 100 chains, or 1000 chains. The sky is the limit.

'Bitcoin-based tech' is not bitcoin. The 'bitcoin-based tech' that solves Bitcoin's shortcomings will dominate. Good money drives out the bad.

Quote

As for cost: In Greece, in order to conduct a bank wire from one bank acc of bank A to another bank account of bank B, it goes like cost 1 euro for sender, cost 3 euro for receiver. Total 4 euros of charge even if I transfer like 10 euros. Do you think this puts people off from transacting with the banks?

Transact != wiring money from bank to bank. If you had to pay 4 euros for a candy bar (on top of the cost of the actual product), you'd have a point.
Not much call for a riskier version of SEPA.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19921. (Read 26608087 times)