At this moment it is not suitable for micro transactions anymore, but that doesn't mean it is not what it was meant to be anymore.
If you want a few hundred dollars worth of bitcoin, use altcoins or keep it on exchanges to prevent running into the high fees.
Topic: What's going on with Bitcoin???? - page 3. (Read 406 times)
Everything that you quoted from the whitepaper is still true.
Yep. Still peer-to-peer. Still electronic. Still cash.
Yep. Can still send directly from one party to another.
Yep. Transactions still complete without any need for a financial institution.
Yep. Still using digital signatures.
Yep. Still don't need a trusted third party to prevent double-spending.
Yep. Still using proof-of-work with an ongoing chain to timestamp transactions.
Yep. Still impossible to change the record without re-doing all the proof-of-work.
Yep. Still using the longest valid chain. Longest chain is still proof that it came from the largest pool of hashing power.
Yep. Bitcoin is still vulnerable to a 51% attack, and as long as the majority is not cooperating to
attack the network, Bitcoin is still secure.
Yep, the network is still only minimally structured, and messages are on a best effort basis.
Yep. My node still leaves and rejoins the network all the time.
Yep. Longest proof-of-work is still reliable proof of what happened.
FURTHERMORE, YOU FORGOT TO QUOTE THIS PART OF THE WHITEPAPER:
What transaction pool? Please show me in the whitepaper where is says anything about a "transaction pool".
Bitcoin doesn't have a "transaction pool".
How exactly are you going to decide what fee I am willing to pay?
That's just a business decision. It has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. Exchanges could just pass the cost of fees on to their users if they want to.
The protocol doesn't set the fees. The users do. There is limited space available in a block for transactions. If someone is willing to pay for the space, they get it.
Of course it is.
It allows online payments to anybody that is willing to pay a competitive price for block space. That's all it was ever intended to do.
Double spending of a confirmed transaction is an impossibility unless there is a 51% attack. This has always been true. This is still true. If you are choosing to accept unconfirmed transactions, then you are choosing to expose yourself to that risk. That has always been true. That is still true.
I get the impression that you are not reading it at all. You are imagining what you want bitcoin to be for you, and complaining that it isn't living up to your expectations. Perhaps if you took the time to set your expectations properly (by actually reading the whitepaper), you wouldn't be so disappointed.
Distant in what way?
It is on track.
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash
Yep. Still peer-to-peer. Still electronic. Still cash.
would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another
Yep. Can still send directly from one party to another.
without going through a financial institution.
Yep. Transactions still complete without any need for a financial institution.
Digital signatures provide part of the solution,
Yep. Still using digital signatures.
but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
Yep. Still don't need a trusted third party to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work,
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work,
Yep. Still using proof-of-work with an ongoing chain to timestamp transactions.
forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.
Yep. Still impossible to change the record without re-doing all the proof-of-work.
The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.
Yep. Still using the longest valid chain. Longest chain is still proof that it came from the largest pool of hashing power.
As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
Yep. Bitcoin is still vulnerable to a 51% attack, and as long as the majority is not cooperating to
attack the network, Bitcoin is still secure.
The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis,
basis,
Yep, the network is still only minimally structured, and messages are on a best effort basis.
and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will,
Yep. My node still leaves and rejoins the network all the time.
accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
Yep. Longest proof-of-work is still reliable proof of what happened.
FURTHERMORE, YOU FORGOT TO QUOTE THIS PART OF THE WHITEPAPER:
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool,
What transaction pool? Please show me in the whitepaper where is says anything about a "transaction pool".
Bitcoin doesn't have a "transaction pool".
having the fees so high
How exactly are you going to decide what fee I am willing to pay?
that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
That's just a business decision. It has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. Exchanges could just pass the cost of fees on to their users if they want to.
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
The protocol doesn't set the fees. The users do. There is limited space available in a block for transactions. If someone is willing to pay for the space, they get it.
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore,
Of course it is.
it doesn't allow online payments
It allows online payments to anybody that is willing to pay a competitive price for block space. That's all it was ever intended to do.
and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Double spending of a confirmed transaction is an impossibility unless there is a 51% attack. This has always been true. This is still true. If you are choosing to accept unconfirmed transactions, then you are choosing to expose yourself to that risk. That has always been true. That is still true.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper?
I get the impression that you are not reading it at all. You are imagining what you want bitcoin to be for you, and complaining that it isn't living up to your expectations. Perhaps if you took the time to set your expectations properly (by actually reading the whitepaper), you wouldn't be so disappointed.
if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper?
Distant in what way?
What can we do to have it back on track?
It is on track.
Bitcoin is becoming less useful for small investors.Large fees have now deterred many people from investing or using bitcoin. Its a rich mans game.
True enough. It's no longer the go-to platform for everyday payments as fees and confirmation time are both getting really really ridiculous.
Bitcoin is becoming less useful for small investors.Large fees have now deterred many people from investing or using bitcoin. Its a rich mans game.
That's why they had bitcoincash fork to overcome its problems. But they failed miserably even in that. Even with bitcoin drawbacks its still more than gold to collect it.
It's still Bitcoin. It was born with a scaling problem, and it very much hasn't shaken it off. Cut down the number of transactions to manageable levels and it will work exactly like how the whitepaper described. Nothing has changed, and that's exactly the problem. A scaling solution has to be implemented.
This wasn't done intentionally. Bitcoin can only handle a fixed amount of transactions, and we're currently over that. As a result, low fee transactions get stuck in limbo, and users enter a bidding war to have their transactions confirmed as soon as possible.
Segwit was a step in the right direction because it allows the network to handle more transactions, but not everyone is using it. Lightning Network is on the horizon, which allows instant "confirmations" that is envisioned to reduce the fees. Other parties are going in other directions, like Bitcoin Cash whose solution is to continuously increase the blocksize as demand goes up.
Quote
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
This wasn't done intentionally. Bitcoin can only handle a fixed amount of transactions, and we're currently over that. As a result, low fee transactions get stuck in limbo, and users enter a bidding war to have their transactions confirmed as soon as possible.
Quote
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper? if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Segwit was a step in the right direction because it allows the network to handle more transactions, but not everyone is using it. Lightning Network is on the horizon, which allows instant "confirmations" that is envisioned to reduce the fees. Other parties are going in other directions, like Bitcoin Cash whose solution is to continuously increase the blocksize as demand goes up.
I think it's quite clear that bitcoin is becoming increasingly unusable for small value transactions. The reason is well known and widely discussed. I think bitcoin will become store of value with little practical use in daily transaction. Other currencies like bitcoin cash will become true transaction money.
Nothing is going on with bitcoin per se, what you are witnessing is first hand greed and what happens when a group of people don't agree. It should be no surprise where there are hundreds of millions and billions of dollars there is some form of corruption. I wish we could live in a utopia that didn't do this but this is the way the world is and you would be naive to not expect it especially in this industry.
The question is what can we do to hold those people accountable? Right now looks like the problem is evident and to me il looks like a bunch of kids are infesting twitter and reddit just trolling and harrassing people around instead of trying to solve the problem, and it looks like those trolls are in charge of what should be what is the revolution of our times. I think Bitcoin deserves something better, again, what can we do?
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
There is no purpose for any of this! None of this is ideal! The problem is a decentralized group of developers not willing to agree on a single direction. That's why we've seen several hard forks, coup attempts, trying to evolve Bitcoin to something better.
What's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Bitcoin hasn't drifted from the whitepaper, it's just matured and grown such that it needs to be updated to evolve with the growing demand.
Nothing is going on with bitcoin per se, what you are witnessing is first hand greed and what happens when a group of people don't agree. It should be no surprise where there are hundreds of millions and billions of dollars there is some form of corruption. I wish we could live in a utopia that didn't do this but this is the way the world is and you would be naive to not expect it especially in this industry.
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
There is no purpose for any of this! None of this is ideal! The problem is a decentralized group of developers not willing to agree on a single direction. That's why we've seen several hard forks, coup attempts, trying to evolve Bitcoin to something better.
What's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Bitcoin hasn't drifted from the whitepaper, it's just matured and grown such that it needs to be updated to evolve with the growing demand.
Hi Guys,
maybe someone can help me understand because I'm having really hard time and I'm sure there are very good reasons!
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
Reading the whitepaper I read:
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore, it doesn't allow online payments (unless you are buying a lambo but I doubt bitcoin purpose is to buy lambos) and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper? if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
maybe someone can help me understand because I'm having really hard time and I'm sure there are very good reasons!
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
Reading the whitepaper I read:
Quote
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore, it doesn't allow online payments (unless you are buying a lambo but I doubt bitcoin purpose is to buy lambos) and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper? if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Jump to: