Topic: Will Netflix and YouTube Threaten Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 1697 times)
I dont think that is a correct article, some netflix lover might just did that for his own happiness that netflix is number 1. That is a one hell of a big fan of netflix. Just look how many views are in youtube videos. That is just views, then how about the users.
I think in the alternate way. As streaming of HD video content grows, the need for payment processing grows as well. If bitcoin continues to prove it is highly secure, it will reach mass quite easily. It takes time. But it's worth in time. Anything that grows and people are ready to buy online, that is a good boost for bitcoin. Only thing we need to worry about is finding ways to reach bitcoin to all kind of people.
Why would they threaten Bitcoin? What did Bitcoin do to them? This is just a stupid question overall. 
I think there won't be much conflicts or threatens for bitcoin. Netflix has got certain bandwidth which is secure and won't get collided with others, and they are charging for it. Youtube too has the same process but its free of cost. Coming to bitcoin they may even try to have tie up so that the streaming fee for these can be paid with the Bitcoins which will be much good for them compared to other means of transaction.
Why would they threaten Bitcoin? What did Bitcoin do to them? This is just a stupid question overall.
Bandwidth should not be a issue at all, and when it becomes a issue the industry will expand to accommodate for that. The backbone can currently handle much more traffic, but it is being throttled to manage steady growth. The backbone is not the issue, the ISP is the bottleneck.
In any case, Bitcoin use very little bandwidth and will not be threatened if this happens. See this, https://www.telegeography.com/telecom-maps/global-internet-map/ {This was in 2012}
Our usage per country, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_broadband_Internet_subscriptions
In any case, Bitcoin use very little bandwidth and will not be threatened if this happens. See this, https://www.telegeography.com/telecom-maps/global-internet-map/ {This was in 2012}
Our usage per country, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_broadband_Internet_subscriptions
Bitcoin would be much better off if Netflix began accepting bitcoin. However I don't think that the bandwidth that Netflix uses will interfere with the bitcoin network any time soon.
How can netflix be bigger than youtube i dont get it. You have to pay for netflix aswell dont you and youtube is free. Also i think this is only in the USA netflix not as popular worldwide, still popular though.
There is nothing to fear as long as the average computer can run a node, of course if you start getting away from this basic principle say goodbye to Bitcoin and hello to Paypal 2.0, so no I don't see how these two sites have anything to do with BTC.
It is not a threat to Bitcoin as it all remains the same. If bandwith is limited by ISPs it is because there is still not enough bandwith, and neither is that much bandwith needed for bitcoin transactions yet. When bandwith increases more, there will be no need to have it limited, and bitcoin will not have problems either.
That is what I think at least.
That is what I think at least.
when goggle with satellite internet will hit everything and or google fiber will be everywhere, i'm not seeing any issue anymore for any kind of video
also, the speed of aconnection is arguably faster than the average connection needed by the average joe
also, the speed of aconnection is arguably faster than the average connection needed by the average joe
I don't think that youtube will directly threaten bitcoin, bandwidth is every day growing also the internet speed needs are everytime increasing.
Wow, if we're talking about Netflix & Youtube worrying about film piracy etc then there are a million places they'd be looking to sue before they got to bitcoin?
This is bullshit man. Companies like AT&T received government subsidies to upgrade the nation's internet infrastructure. Instead, they kept it all and either went golfing or bought mortgage backed securities. US internet throughput is being gimped on purpose. It looks like someone put Blockstream in charge of the internet too.
I think I read similar numbers for germany/europe. The backbone network is at ~10% capacity. The last mile to the customer is whats badly developed, especially in rural areas.
This is bullshit man. Companies like AT&T received government subsidies to upgrade the nation's internet infrastructure. Instead, they kept it all and either went golfing or bought mortgage backed securities. US internet throughput is being gimped on purpose. It looks like someone put Blockstream in charge of the internet too.
As Satoshi predicted, it is now possible to send a few HD movies around the internet without too much effort:
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-87.0-107.16
The issue is that everyone wants to watch HD movies and access video content:
What this is doing is causing infrastructure providers, ISPs in particular, to ration the internet.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/
So, will the huge growth in on demand HD video content, leading up to on demand 4k video content prevent Bitcoin from growing, without some extra costs being incurred by those running full nodes?
Yes pruning, SPVs, etc don't need a full block chain......but a growing Bitcoin and a falling full node count will, at some point, reach an imbalance.
NB: this is not a big block vs. small block; core vs. classic thread.
Quote
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-87.0-107.16
The issue is that everyone wants to watch HD movies and access video content:
What this is doing is causing infrastructure providers, ISPs in particular, to ration the internet.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/
So, will the huge growth in on demand HD video content, leading up to on demand 4k video content prevent Bitcoin from growing, without some extra costs being incurred by those running full nodes?
Yes pruning, SPVs, etc don't need a full block chain......but a growing Bitcoin and a falling full node count will, at some point, reach an imbalance.
NB: this is not a big block vs. small block; core vs. classic thread.
Jump to: