141–150 of 412 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying they are acceptable, i'm saying that $20 fees per average transaction isn't true in all cases except once in the history of bitcoin.
Is there reason to believe that sort of congestion won't reoccur?
So ideally there will be more traffic but less congestion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stocks are a thing because no one thinks of them as liquid assets. Steam is making the same argument about bitcoin essentially.
Stocks are an order of magnitude more liquid than Bitcoin, though
I posted this as an Ask HN, but this might be interesting here. It's sort of off-topic, but in this case there's not much to say about Steam dropping Bitcoin anyway. Maybe it'll hover near the bottom: What should we do about the destabilizing potential of Bitcoin? There are two facts about Bitcoin worth worrying about: 1. There is no upper bound on the price 2. Everyone who thought the price won't continue to exponen…
Why would it be a 'relief' if the price crashes back to $1K?
Makes business and technological sense. Even the true believers have largely switched to advocating the store-of-value/digital gold model of bitcoin. We're absolutely in a bitcoin/cryptocurrency mania. Unfortunately, stating that is much easier than predicting what will happen next.
I've been hearing this a lot, but what does it actually mean ? Isn't the most important thing you want from a store of value stability? Ie, that it'll store the value that you put into it? Bitcoin certainly doesn't have that property. And if that's not the desired property implied by "store of value", what is?
Obviously this is not even noise compared to bitcoin; but my point is that bitcoin has shown to be an exceptional store of value for a long term hold.
Beyond that, I think most people who believe in bitcoin as a long term store of value expect that when it reaches a mature global-level market cap; the swings should be less severe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: even if a currency is only good for exchanging for other currencies, doesn't that still make it a currency? In other words, even if you can't go buy clothing or games or hosting with BTC, doesn't the fact that you can exchange it for $LOCAL_CURRENCY (which can be used to buy those things) give it value? Basically, a meta-currency or currency of currencies, if you will. Edit: I realize we are saying…
No, it becomes an asset, like gold.
BC has none of those advantages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having used bitcoins as money, I really want the confirmation times and transaction fees to go back to what they were a year or two ago. I keep hearing that this mythical lightning will fix things, and I sure hope it does. I want internet money. I want to be able to send money to anyone, anywhere in the world, at the drop of a hat, as easy as email. I don't care about speculation or getting rich or avoiding taxes or…
We've mostly had this for years, in the form of PayPal. Your ID even is your email. The issues with PayPal have mostly been interfacing with fiat currency, which any system will have to deal with, and transaction fees, which any system will have. The real problem IMO is the lack of a de-facto service that everyone all around the world has, and we're kind of in this position: https://xkcd.com/927/
Having family and friends in different countries who use different currencies, let me tell you, Paypal is not the solution I want.
I'm here to say the problems in selling games for Bitcoin are not the same for microtransactions. I'm the original developer of Bitquest[1], where we used to process hundreds of micropayments smaller than 1 cent each day using 0 fee Bitcoin transactions. When the blocks started to fill up we had to move all transactions off-chain except when players send money to the game and cashing out. From the player's perspectiv…
do you know of any current implementations of lightning on the actual blockchain and not testnet (BTC or LTC)? thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless "replace by fee" is opted into, most nodes won't allow a second transaction to replace a previous one. Which means it's a gamble if that will ever work.
If the transaction hasn't been committed (etched into the blockchain), then isn't there a financial advantage to accepting the highest fee transaction? The protocol doesn't matter, mempools aren't validated or shared[+], and so the validity of the chain isn't challenged by processing the higher fee. So given that the bitcoin network is designed to be operated by greedy miners, surely one would break with "tradition"…
But it's playing with fire to rely on that, because without opt-in RBF it's far from a sure thing.
I'm here to say the problems in selling games for Bitcoin are not the same for microtransactions. I'm the original developer of Bitquest[1], where we used to process hundreds of micropayments smaller than 1 cent each day using 0 fee Bitcoin transactions. When the blocks started to fill up we had to move all transactions off-chain except when players send money to the game and cashing out. From the player's perspectiv…
do you know of any current implementations of lightning on the actual blockchain and not testnet (BTC or LTC)? thanks!
https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0...
"As developers of the Lightning Network protocol, we’re
excited to announce version 1.0 RC of the Lightning
protocol specification along with a successful cross-
implementation test on Bitcoin mainnet!"Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even the true believers have largely switched to advocating the store-of-value/digital gold model of bitcoin. Which is absolutely insane. What's the point of a currency if you can't use it for transactions? Store-of-value? What value?
> What value? $13K of value, and counting.
All other fiat currencies have some fundamental value. In the past they were backed by gold. Most common today, you have to pay your taxes using them, which means for example everybody who owes US taxes needs USD.