Keep in mind off chain networks will still allow people to transact during 51% attacks. It just takes 2 pools being compromised for Bitcoin to be 51%'d
Offchain transactions has it's benefits and drawbacks. Onchain + offchain is the best, not just onchain or offchain.
Topic: What if all transactions go 'Off Chain'? - page 2. (Read 1710 times)
I really like what inputs.io is trying to do, but it complements on chain txs, it doesn't replace them. No matter how good a BTC-bank is, it still contains counter-party risk. Having low cost on chain transactions means you never need to store a sizeable portion of your wealth with third parties, and that is what BTC is all about.
Yep. We think a lot of our users will use Inputs.io as their day to day wallet for the benefits of no fees and instant confirms. But the blockchain will always have it's purpose - it is hard to beat trust-free.Quote
Which essentially means off chain transactions are big f-you to the concept of Bitcoin. If you are okay with this, then you might as well just use USD and PayPal, what's the difference?
Are you aware that many Bitcoin core devs suggest off chain as a solution, and we've been in contact with them?
The entire point of Bitcoin was to serve as a means of exchange in a network that is:
Off chain transactions however cannot be implemented unless you have a single entity that controls and keep track of the transactions, which means this abstraction makes transacting:
Which in turn essentially means off chain transactions are big f-you to the concept of Bitcoin. If you are okay with this, then you might as well just use USD and PayPal, what's the difference?
I applaud inputs.io for trying to do what they do, which for an online wallet is innovative and overall a great business idea; I just don't see the future of Bitcoin there. What we need is simply super lighting fast confirmations that can work in the current Bitcoin network as it is.
- Distributed
- Uncontrolled
- In no need of trust to transact
Off chain transactions however cannot be implemented unless you have a single entity that controls and keep track of the transactions, which means this abstraction makes transacting:
- Centralized
- Controlled
- Reliant on trust
Which in turn essentially means off chain transactions are big f-you to the concept of Bitcoin. If you are okay with this, then you might as well just use USD and PayPal, what's the difference?
I applaud inputs.io for trying to do what they do, which for an online wallet is innovative and overall a great business idea; I just don't see the future of Bitcoin there. What we need is simply super lighting fast confirmations that can work in the current Bitcoin network as it is.
I really like what inputs.io is trying to do, but it complements on chain txs, it doesn't replace them. No matter how good a BTC-bank is, it still contains counter-party risk. Having low cost on chain transactions means you never need to store a sizeable portion of your wealth with third parties, and that is what BTC is all about.
All transactions can't go off chain unless there is a single monopolistic entity handling all Bitcoin transactions. Even if there were only two entities handling all the transactions they would need the blockchain to settle transactions between the entities.
With the limitation of 7 transactions/second, 10 minute confirmation times, hour long deposits, and sometimes, transactions that take days, there is a big incentive to create ways to transact off the chain. With inputs.io and soon Open Transactions, it seems there has already been some movement in this direction.
It has been claimed that the block size limit will be increased sometime in the future. But there is already movement to get around the block chain altogether. If a new method of securing transactions can be instant, then the block chain becomes less attractive.
So if enough transactions go off chain, will there still be enough incentive to mine and secure the block chain? or will it lead to fewer transaction fees, fewer miners, less security......
And if the answer is no, that wouldn't happen, I'd be interested in hearing some thought on why, and what would happen if the answer were yes.
It has been claimed that the block size limit will be increased sometime in the future. But there is already movement to get around the block chain altogether. If a new method of securing transactions can be instant, then the block chain becomes less attractive.
So if enough transactions go off chain, will there still be enough incentive to mine and secure the block chain? or will it lead to fewer transaction fees, fewer miners, less security......
And if the answer is no, that wouldn't happen, I'd be interested in hearing some thought on why, and what would happen if the answer were yes.
Jump to: