Ending Bitcoin Support

Post by zik » Wed, Jan 24, 2018, 1:13 AM UTC

carlosthedwarf wrote: post #401

jnbiche wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please unpack this statement. Which part of the Bitcoin system is functioning incorrectly? The payment system part. One of the main reasons why Satoshi created Bitcoin in the first place. As someone who got into Bitcoin in early 2011 (but left when things got crazy around 2014), it's utterly laughable to me that Bitcoin now can't even be used as a payment system. And that the fees per transaction are roughly the sa…

But isn't increasing the block size limit still just a temporary fix? Wouldn't Bitcoin Cash also be rendered useless as a payment system if it was handling a similar volume of transactions as bitcoin?

Post by hluch » Wed, Jan 24, 2018, 1:17 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #408

lelandbatey wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that people can still use it for things, and the various dark net markets that exist prove that there's at least some kind of use for unofficial (pseudo?)-anonymous currency. Though, by no means are darknets the only way of getting some use out of unofficial currencies. There will always be desire and utility for such systems.

Those darknet markets are only used to buy illegal things, or circumvent currency controls. I understand using a darknet to buy heroin and assassinations, but why on earth would I want to use a darknet market to buy a car? To pay my rent?

Post by abritinthebay » Wed, Jan 24, 2018, 1:21 AM UTC

jugchock wrote: post #485

stanmancan wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a few different ones that have made huge jumps forward; RaiBlocks can apparently do around 7,000tx/s.

Steem regularly processes 1.5 million transactions per day and is at 0.13% capacity[1]. If my math is right, that comes out to the ability to process 14k tx/s. [1]: http://www.blocktivity.info

Post by tyingq » Wed, Jan 24, 2018, 1:29 AM UTC

bparsons wrote: post #382

koheripbal wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't know what use-case remains for Bitcoin. If you have large value transactions you'd probably choose something with privacy like Monero, and if you want something cheap and fast, maybe Bitcoin Cash. In both use-cases, you have a few competing alternatives. In no circumstance is Bitcoin preferable to one of the mature alternatives. ...and if no one is using it as a transaction medium, then acting as a s…

I think Bitcoin is the AOL of blockchain technology. It was a first mover, it had huge uptake and valuation, but in a few years (or perhaps already) someone is going to build a protocol that is capable of hundreds of thousands of secure transactions a second, and it will make Bitcoin look archaic.

Post by scoggs » Wed, Jan 24, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #229

masklinn wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be fair, people could also stop thinking gold is worth much. They've already noted that: > people's perception of its value will change But as they say, a gold bar will remain a gold bar, until and unless it is actively destroyed. Not so for bitcoins, which only remain so as long as they're actively maintained (not just individual coins but the mining networks which allows the creation of new transactions)

I’m not entirely convinced, although I’m partway there. When you “have” a Bitcoin, that means you have the private key to a wallet which the blockchain says has such-and-such amount in it. You can have that even if the miners all disappear. You can still use it to sign transactions, although they won’t get confirmed. You can even confirm them by mining a new block yourself with your transactions in it. (If all the mi…