Topic: What vision do you have for bitcoin's blockchain - page 2. (Read 1606 times)

It is an interesting idea that political enemies can delete the entries in land registry office. Who controls the land registry office?

It will be good that everyone accept the registration of property ownership on the block chain, but how to prove that some numbers on blockchain correspond to some land? I guess you would still need a registry office setup by some authorities to define the relationship between blockchain and land, and if that registration record is wiped out by your political enemy, you would lose the relationship between blockchain and the property

For example you can code in a set of GPS corrdinate of a piece of land in blockchain and name of its owner, but how can you prove that this person is the real owner of that land?

Definitely not for retail purchases. The only area i have confidence it will excel is the money remittance part where low cost fast money transfer gives all the advantages against existing transfer options.

Thanks for mentioning more points

The current block size debate to its root need to have an estimation about what kind of transaction will be on the blockchain in future. If majority of users are going to use blockchain to do low value high speed transaction, then the block size must be scaled to several GB, which cause significant technical difficulties for the infrastructure. However, if most of the transactions are high value low speed transactions, then it becomes much easier to handle

An interesting comparison is Fedwire system, where Federal Reserve banks sending money between its member banks. Average value per transfer is 6.55 million dollars in 2014, and it made 135 million transactions during 2014, which translates into 4.28 transactions per second, similar to bitcoin right now

And the number of Fedwire transactions per day just increased 2.4x since 1988, so the annual growth is only a couple of percent

http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fedfunds_ann.htm


So if you want to build bitcoin to be a system similar to Fedwire, then current bitcoin is already fine, no big changes are needed for the foreseeable future


However, even Jeff Garzik don't think bitcoin development will take this approach, in his BIP 100 he said:

"In a minority view, bitcoin is a commodity to which an inconsequential payment network is attached. These users view bitcoin as purely as a commodity whose storage cost is far less than the equivalent value of storage. To these users, increasing transaction volume on the network, scaling to support millions of users is simply folly. As the system approaches the speed limit, transaction fees rise. This user base generates little transaction volume, and higher transaction fees are still offset by the value gained from the network’s protection of their commodity. These users likely feel inaction, keeping the speed limit intact, is the most rational step for their situation.

Conversely, a prevailing view is that this speed limit presents a severe constraint on growth and adoption. The speed limit, in the face of user base growth, will lead to higher fees, ultimately reaching an equilibrium when the system capacity of 7 transactions/second is reached. This will cause a ripple effect where blockchain-centered business plans are shelved, or never started in the first place, for lack of perceived scalability. Higher fees then drive a preference for centralized services which can aggregate those fees across multiple bitcoin users, or strike bulk rate deals. The use of bitcoin becomes a rather exclusive club"


So you see, his view is that the low value high frequency trading is important for user base growth. My observation is, for new users it is important to have a frictionless experience, but later on they would still treat bitcoin as commodity instead of daily transaction medium, because most of the people prefer to do those with inflative fiat money. Those people who constantly do small bitcoin transactions are either buying drugs or gambling, mostly illegal in every country's law

Where is "All the above (and then some)"?

I predict the blockchain will get longer. 

I think of it as some kind of commodity / store of value. It is, of course, much more than that; it is portable, digital, a payment protocol. But I view its payment capabilities less as a way to do "supermarket shopping" and more so a way transfer that store of value. In other words, I don't see it as a currency, a medium of exchange; I view it as commodity that is magnificently easy to divide and transfer. Generally, I am less concerned about micropayments and more concerned about keeping bitcoin decentralized and free of external controls.

i chose the second option because i don't see bitcoin taking the place of fiat and the current payment methods for our day to day expenses like supermarket shopping. in comparison it is always going to be easier to use fiat instead of bitcoin.

but for savings and international payment network, bitcoin or any technology that uses blockchain is the best option because of the fast transactions with high security and on top of that it is practically free with the amount of fee that you have to pay

The blockchain is seen as the main technological innovation of Bitcoin, since it stands as proof of all the transactions on the network. A block is the ‘current’ part of a blockchain which records some or all of the recent transactions, and once completed goes into the blockchain as permanent database. Each time a block gets completed, a new block is generated. There is a countless number of such blocks in the blockchain. So are the blocks randomly placed in a blockchain? No, they are linked to each other (like a chain) in proper linear, chronological order with every block containing a hash of the previous block.

The ever-growing size of the blockchain is considered by some to be a problem due to issues like storage and synchronization. On an average, every 10 minutes, a new block is appended to the block chain through mining.

And I agree with:

You're missing a few options.

• None of the above
• All of the above
• Some of the above
• Some other possibilities

For example, what if my vision doesn't include "Supermarket shopping", but does include "durable goods" such as:

• Automobiles
• Furniture
• Household Appliances
• High end electronics
• Firearms
• Jewelry

Or what if my vision includes business-to-business transactions, especially things like:

• Farm Equipment
• Construction Equipment
• Wholesale
• Business Services

Note that if the on-chain volume isn't high enough, then the typical person (even someone "saving" or engaging in "international remittance") won't be able to participate.  If huge multinational corporations are using bitcoin for international remittance of millions, or even billions of dollars worth of bitcoins per transaction, then there isn't any individual that is going to be able to afford the transaction fees necessary to compete with such transactions.

Added a mining option, I guess most of the transactions on blockchain today are pools paying miners 

Thanks for reminding me of those countries who do not have a good fiat money system, this makes the usage more complicated. If people don't have a reliable fiat money to use, then bitcoin's payment function suddenly becomes more important

Maybe the question should be about the blockchain instead of bitcoin, I changed it

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this thread. In my opinion, if one of these two predictions becomes a reality, the other will take place. I don't think it's possible to have one extreme without the other.

Anyways, what I personally feel is the best possible future for use case is bridging living inequalities worldwide. We already see on a small scale that Bitcoiners in third world countries that participate in simple things such as signature campaigns can earn more than from a working class job in their country. If Bitcoin was used as a payment for these individuals on a larger scale, the standard of living could greatly increase worldwide.

Please add cloud mining option in the poll.

There are basically two different view of bitcoin's future

1. Bitcoin becomes a popular payment system, everyone pick a smartphone with built-in bitcoin app, and they start to receive bitcoin salary. Its value is very stable so that people don't worry about losing 10% of their purchasing power overnight

2. Bitcoin become the world's most reliable digital currency and fastest international settlement network. Large financial institutions use it to quickly settle millions dollar worth of value transfer across the globe, many mutual/pension funds and even governments periodically invest in it, its value keeps changing every day, but the long term trend is up


The first vision has some difficulties:

First, bitcoin is deflative by design, its value will always rise against fiat money long term wise, thus people will always spend fiat money and save bitcoin if possible, resulting very little amount of bitcoin transactions being done for daily consumption

Typically, when people want to spend their bitcoin, they sell it on exchange during a rally, and slowly spend those fiat money they get from the sale


Second, besides Visa/Mastercard, some of the latest mobile payment network can already do instant transaction with almost zero fee. They use fiat money, thus have 100% domestic merchant support. Bitcoin does not have any fee/speed advantage against them, and the volatile exchange rate also makes it a bad currency for daily spending

So, low value real time transactions are best suited to use a centralized local fiat money payment network. Bitcoin generally can not handle high frequency transactions well due to its design: Every transaction on blockchain is a final settlement and must be written to thousands of databases around the world. On the contrary, a centralized local payment network writes only to its own databases

Due to above difficulties, driving bitcoin development towards first direction will consume large amount of resources and efforts but still get poor result. Being able to buy pizza using bitcoin does not mean that it is created to maily buy pizza. True, it has superior properties than fiat money, but just because it is so much better, people will use it for more advanced purposes than daily shopping. For daily shopping, fiat money is enough


On the other hand, the second vision of a long term saving medium and international payment network is more inline with the unique strength of bitcoin: Limited supply, censorship resistance and trustless transaction. No existing financial solutions can compete with bitcoin in these area, so it will quickly occupy the market where these properties are desired and become the leader

What is your opinion?