Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

#41

Post by danbruc »

lostsock wrote: post #38
danbruc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about the situation elsewhere but here in Germany credit card usages usually requires a PIN or a signature. And the credit card company will pay for abuse if you are not responsible. With transaction costs currently between 10 and 20 dollars per transaction and with a record of close to 100 dollars it does not really look like a good way to implement micro transactions.

Where are you getting the transaction costs of between 10 and 20 dollars? For bitcoin? If so I think you need to take another look at your numbers.[1] [1] http://i.imgur.com/DgQk0og.png

Not fees, transaction costs. See one of my other comments, I don't want to type it out once again.

Re: A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

#42

Post by natrius »

danbruc wrote: post #34
natrius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin speculators. The folks who hook up their bank accounts to the Bitcoin network don't hold bitcoins or pay the block rewards.

250 PH/s, 1 W/GH/s, 0.1 $/kWh and you get 219 million dollars per year to run the Bitcoin network. At 75.000 transactions per day this yields 8 dollars per transaction. And these are real costs somebody has to pay for. Maybe most of that is currently covered by the influx of new money but this is not going to last forever. And once the block reward is gone this has to be covered by the fees. Neither lowering the hash…

So your position is that no one is ever going to figure out how to make cryptocurrencies sustainable? Bitshares is already doing it today, and any strategy that proves itself can easily be added to Bitcoin. It's a bad bet, but good luck with that.

Re: A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

#43

Post by maaku »

applecore wrote: post #19

Blockstream's eleven (!) founders include the majority of Bitcoin's core developers—they're also the ones pushing most fervently for a fork of the Bitcoin protocol. Is there anything to be worried about here? (That is, besides the perplexing nature of a startup raising a $21 million “seed round” for its multitudinous founders to develop an entirely new and unproven technology stack.)

No if you mean people with commit bit, we have just two of the five active developers. The community of Bitcoin developers is much larger though and we come no where near a majority.

Re: A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

#44

Post by ThomPete »

danbruc wrote: post #17
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace bitcoin in what you just said with internet, VOIP, airplanes, ipod and you got a pretty solid template for historic underestimations of technology in the long run.

All the things you mention have value. But what is the value of using Bitcoins for the average person? Where are Bitcoins so obviously better than a credit card that switching is a good decision?

They didn't have value for the average person they GOT value with time.

Who ever needed TCP/IP besides the governments? Well as it turns out the whole world did and not in any way it was originally intended.

The difference between short term hype and long term implications are always hard but I think when it comes to bitcoin I think its fair to say that we haven't even begun to see the implications.

Re: A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

#45

Post by ThomPete »

danbruc wrote: post #34
natrius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin speculators. The folks who hook up their bank accounts to the Bitcoin network don't hold bitcoins or pay the block rewards.

250 PH/s, 1 W/GH/s, 0.1 $/kWh and you get 219 million dollars per year to run the Bitcoin network. At 75.000 transactions per day this yields 8 dollars per transaction. And these are real costs somebody has to pay for. Maybe most of that is currently covered by the influx of new money but this is not going to last forever. And once the block reward is gone this has to be covered by the fees. Neither lowering the hash…

Of course you have also done the calculation for the current system right?

Hundreds of thousands of people involved in making the current system work. Legislation and so on.

Re: A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

#46

Post by danbruc »

ThomPete wrote: post #45
danbruc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

250 PH/s, 1 W/GH/s, 0.1 $/kWh and you get 219 million dollars per year to run the Bitcoin network. At 75.000 transactions per day this yields 8 dollars per transaction. And these are real costs somebody has to pay for. Maybe most of that is currently covered by the influx of new money but this is not going to last forever. And once the block reward is gone this has to be covered by the fees. Neither lowering the hash…

Of course you have also done the calculation for the current system right? Hundreds of thousands of people involved in making the current system work. Legislation and so on.

Does it matter? My point was that Bitcoin transactions are not cheap, that only looking at the transaction fee is misleading. The electricity costs per transaction are currently 200 times larger than the transaction fees, not accounting for hardware costs or any profit for miners. So the whole thing has to change a lot if you want a sustainable system with transaction costs close to transaction fees.

Re: A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

#47

Post by ThomPete »

danbruc wrote: post #46
ThomPete wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you have also done the calculation for the current system right? Hundreds of thousands of people involved in making the current system work. Legislation and so on.

Does it matter? My point was that Bitcoin transactions are not cheap, that only looking at the transaction fee is misleading. The electricity costs per transaction are currently 200 times larger than the transaction fees, not accounting for hardware costs or any profit for miners. So the whole thing has to change a lot if you want a sustainable system with transaction costs close to transaction fees.

Yes it matters as thats also part of the cost.
Post reply on HN