The Bubbly Bitcoin Thread -- Merged Threads

[Darby Ram]

1 minute ago, evetsm said:

$30 is wealthy these days ?

Average fee now = $40.

At most you would want to pay 1.5% (still expensive, but let's call it a security fee) to transact so that gets us to a $2666 transaction size.

If you were saving monthly that would be $32000 a year.

If Bitcoin was 5% of your portfolio (still a lot), you would be saving as part of a $640,000 annual portfolio.

So, yes, back-of-the-envelope: this means that you have to be rich to use Bitcoin as savings vehicle economically.

***

Let's say you were only saving once a year into a Bitcoin: you would still need to be saving more than $50,000 dollars a year. (The average household income in the US was c.$59K). So, yes, you have to be rich to store your wealth using Bitcoin.

[goldbug9999]

13 minutes ago, evetsm said:

$30 is wealthy these days ?

Playing devils advocate ... $30 is a western blue collar workers hourly net wage, if they want to save $100 a month into crypto what are they going to do ?.

[erat_forte]

Doesn't the fee go up and down depending on demand?

Mrs. did a small transaction (<£20) a week and a half ago, went through in 3 or 4 hours with no fee at all.

[InlikeFlynn]

11 minutes ago, erat_forte said:

Doesn't the fee go up and down depending on demand?

Mrs. did a small transaction (<£20) a week and a half ago, went through in 3 or 4 hours with no fee at all.

are you sure? I haven't spent any bitcoin for a while but it cost me a few quid when I did.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

57 minutes ago, evetsm said:

The decentralized blockchain cannot process throughput efficiently and remain decentralized, onchain. It's just not possible. If you push up throughput onchain you sacrifice decentralization, and hence security. Without decentralized security you have nothing new. You have PayPal.

So, to scale and hold decentralized security you must go off chain, onto layers. I happen to not believe that these layers could ever be as secure as bitcoin because outside they would be bitcoin ! And that's what were seeing with lightning, and eventually all other non-bitcoin solutions. It becomes horribly convoluted to try and build another bitcoin into the layers. It becomes a vast trade off exercise.

On this point, I think BTC will end with a kind of death freeze. It will become increasingly unwieldy and expensive to both use BTC and to run the Infrastructure. So BTC farms will shut down or deployed to other coins , and eventually BTC will effectively be centralised on a small number of farms. Meanwhile large volumes of Satoshi/Coins will be held that are not worth trading and perhaps one or two with big holdings will be trying to sell to release their Billions and not finding buyers.

This will all come down due to the transaction costs, lack of scalability and dying real world useage.

 

 

[doomed]

25 minutes ago, erat_forte said:

Doesn't the fee go up and down depending on demand?

Mrs. did a small transaction (<£20) a week and a half ago, went through in 3 or 4 hours with no fee at all.

Unless it was Bitcoin Cash she didn't. You can prove it though by linking the transaction id.

[doomed]

11 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

On this point, I think BTC will end with a kind of death freeze. It will become increasingly unwieldy and expensive to both use BTC and to run the Infrastructure. So BTC farms will shut down or deployed to other coins , and eventually BTC will effectively be centralised on a small number of farms. Meanwhile large volumes of Satoshi/Coins will be held that are not worth trading and perhaps one or two with big holdings will be trying to sell to release their Billions and not finding buyers.

This will all come down due to the transaction costs, lack of scalability and dying real world useage.

 

 

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. All the miners have an alternative already in Bitcoin Cash and most businesses have started the transition.

There will be 1 dominant global chain backed by sha256 due to the security its immense hashing power provides. That chain will be Bitcoin Cash.

Edited December 21, 2017 by doomed

[doomed]

32 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Playing devils advocate ... $30 is a western blue collar workers hourly net wage, if they want to save $100 a month into crypto what are they going to do ?.

They can't. $30 in + $30 out. Can I can sense someone starting to wake up?

[adamLancs]

Alright, let's have a little bit of reality here. The only reason Roger is so enthusiastic about Bitcoin Cash, by trying to destroy Bitcoin's name, is if he has already moved a majority portion of his 300k coins away from Bitcoin into Roger Coin. That means at least 150,000 BTC  since he had at least 300,000 BTC that he bought at $1 or less. That Bcash/Roger Coin has been down to 0.06 BTC and the average trade level has been about 0.1 BTC means Roger Ver has anywhere from 1,000,000 to 2,500,000 Bitcoin Cash right now. Jesus. Welcome to your new overlord, it's like giving power to Eric Cartman (see above).

No thanks. If you want cheap tx -> Ethereum, Iota, Litecoin, Dash, etc plenty of options. Plenty of options.

[evetsm]

23 minutes ago, adamLancs said:

).

No thanks. If you want cheap tx -> Ethereum, Iota, Litecoin, Dash, etc plenty of options. Plenty of options.

And that sums it up. You will have to use high throughput coins with less security. The is just not one single reason that it should be bcash. That coin is cancer, because it's run by a psycho. There are many, many choices in this league. But in the high value, high security league there is only 1 choice. Bitcoin

Edited December 21, 2017 by evetsm

[ThePrufeshanul]

Just watched that interview - and personally don't see what the problem is. 

Ver was getting intentionally goaded by the smirking interviewer who was intentionally winding him up. To be honest he was less insulting than many of the contributors to this thread!

it doesn't change anything anyway - before the fork Ver, Jihan etc were all major supporters of Bitcoin but it didn't lead to any of the current BTC supporters giving up their money in protest.

[doomed]

Running a nonmining node at home provides zero security to network. FFS people use your brains, why do we burn all this energy mining? It is trivial to perform a sybil attack using nodes, if they mattered Bitcoin would already be broken.

[Errol]

LOL!

 

Long Island Iced Tea Soars 500% After Changing Its Name To Long Blockchain

Now that it is abundantly clear that for a stock to explode higher, all that is necessary - and sufficient - is a press release mentioning the company's name and throwing in the word "blockchain" in the same sentence (see Riot Blockchain, LongFin Corp, Net Element, and Nova Lifestyle), other public microcaps have decided that if that's all it takes, then by all means they will gladly take investors' money.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-21/long-island-iced-tea-soars-500-after-changing-its-name-long-blockchain

[evetsm]

1 hour ago, erat_forte said:

Doesn't the fee go up and down depending on demand?

Mrs. did a small transaction (<£20) a week and a half ago, went through in 3 or 4 hours with no fee at all.

Yes. The bitcoin fees were just temporarily high due to the difficulty adjustment period and thus the mempool filling. Supply and demand. Fees are now reported to be in the order of $1.

Note, if you use a segwit transaction you will save around 30-40% on fees,  regardless. Coinbase and others refuse to implement segwit, go figure. If you set your own fee on your wallet, instead of just accepting the often overcharged default fee, then you can save more.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by evetsm

[dragging boot straps]

2 hours ago, erat_forte said:

Doesn't the fee go up and down depending on demand?

Mrs. did a small transaction (<£20) a week and a half ago, went through in 3 or 4 hours with no fee at all.

3 or 4 hours. My god that is not very good at all. Completely unusable.

[doomed]

1 hour ago, evetsm said:

Yes. The bitcoin fees were just temporarily high due to the difficulty adjustment period and thus the mempool filling. Supply and demand. Fees are now reported to be in the order of $1.

Note, if you use a segwit transaction you will save around 30-40% on fees,  regardless. Coinbase and others refuse to implement segwit, go figure. If you set your own fee on your wallet, instead of just accepting the often overcharged default fee, then you can save more.

 

 

You can send a transaction then pay a miner to include it. People are not paying $30 fees for fun. Again people think for yourselves what is more likely? 

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#30d

[Eddie_George]

1 hour ago, doomed said:

Running a nonmining node at home provides zero security to network. FFS people use your brains, why do we burn all this energy mining? It is trivial to perform a sybil attack using nodes, if they mattered Bitcoin would already be broken.

You don't understand how Bitcoin works.

If people want to be sure that the transactions they send and receive are genuine then they need to run a full node. Otherwise you're trusting someone else (your SPV wallet provider) to validate your transactions for you.

[Darby Ram]

19 minutes ago, Eddie_George said:

You don't understand how Bitcoin works.

If people want to be sure that the transactions they send and receive are genuine then they need to run a full node. Otherwise you're trusting someone else (your SPV wallet provider) to validate your transactions for you.

You keep saying things along these lines without a great deal of evidence. On balance, I'd suggest that you fundamentally don't understand that there are trade-offs involved in blockchain technology and that other people are suggesting that Core are making the wrong trade-offs.

It is perfectly possible to understand both of these things at once:

1. running a full node stops you having to trust light wallets;
2. making nodes more expensive to run may be a decent trade off if the alternative is a sclerotic and expensive network.    

[Eddie_George]

33 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

You keep saying things along these lines without a great deal of evidence. On balance, I'd suggest that you fundamentally don't understand that there are trade-offs involved in blockchain technology and that other people are suggesting that Core are making the wrong trade-offs.

It is perfectly possible to understand both of these things at once:

1. running a full node stops you having to trust light wallets;
2. making nodes more expensive to run may be a decent trade off if the alternative is a sclerotic and expensive network.    

 

Quote

If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.

https://hackernoon.com/bitcoin-owners-you-need-to-do-these-two-things-right-now-a73122dd23d4

Incompetent companies that failed at trying to gain control of Bitcoin development are stalling with upgrades because they have vested interests in other coins. They've also contributed very little to Bitcoin's software development over the years despite raising billions in funding.

Furthermore, many of the exchanges that contribute significant on-chain traffic haven't even implemented batching!

Edited December 21, 2017 by Eddie_George

[GreenDevil]

4 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

On this point, I think BTC will end with a kind of death freeze. It will become increasingly unwieldy and expensive to both use BTC and to run the Infrastructure.

 

 

The miners love high fees.

Right now the reward per BTC is 12.5BTC (coin reward) and up to 5 BTC in fees.

There has never been a better time to mine BTC.

[doomed]

The narrative that all these companies that helped Bitcoin get to where it is today are some how anti bitcoin is beyond ridiculous and I hope others reading some of the nonsense posted can see this. Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain. 

Certain posters here are suffering from serious Dunning-Kruger effects.

[evetsm]

18 minutes ago, doomed said:

The narrative that all these companies that helped Bitcoin get to where it is today are some how anti bitcoin is beyond ridiculous and I hope others reading some of the nonsense posted can see this. Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain. 

Certain posters here are suffering from serious Dunning-Kruger effects.

Satoshi says:

 

Nick Szabo
@NickSzabo4
Bitcoin has or is evolving through several stages of value transfer:
1. small value transfers at layer 1 when Bitcoin was a tiny niche (10,000 BTC for a pizza)
2. larger value txs as wealth flow increases and small txs get priced out of layer 1
3. small value txs at layer 2

Who are you?

Edited December 21, 2017 by evetsm

[dgul]

26 minutes ago, evetsm said:

Satoshi says:

 

Nick Szabo
@NickSzabo4
Bitcoin has or is evolving through several stages of value transfer:
1. small value transfers at layer 1 when Bitcoin was a tiny niche (10,000 BTC for a pizza)
2. larger value txs as wealth flow increases and small txs get priced out of layer 1
3. small value txs at layer 2

Who are you?

There is no current fundamental value transfer.

The steps are:

1. Hardly anyone has heard of it, let alone think it might be worth something in the future. 

2. Some people think it might be worth something in the future

3. Quite a few people think it might be worth something in the future

4. Many people think it might be worth something in the future

5. Everyone things it is worth something right now.  But it isn't really used for transactions

6. Everyone thinks it is worth something right now and it is used for many transactions.

I'd say we're at level 2 at the moment.  I'm not sure we'll get to 3.

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Are going to get an XRP thread? 

At the moment this is where the action seems to be.

XRP may well end up standing for eXtremely Rich People, as I can see it running for quite a while having just smashed the $1 level. It is now measured in Dollars  and not Cents, so still cheap

[dgul]

27 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Are going to get an XRP thread? 

At the moment this is where the action seems to be.

XRP may well end up standing for eXtremely Rich People, as I can see it running for quite a while having just smashed the $1 level. It is now measured in Dollars  and not Cents, so still cheap

How can you say this nonsense.  You'll next be advising that Japan would be a cheap place to visit because you can get a Yen for a penny, unlike those nasty Dollars that nearly cost a whole Pound.

All that matters is the market cap and the potential for advancement.  Sure, Ripple is lower than Bitcoin, but it is still at 1/5th the cap of Bitcoin, so if it took over the mantle the potential gains are IRO 500%; it wouldn't go to $10k (for the same cap).  I could agree that there might be a future in Ripple*, but the cost per coin isn't what makes it a better investment compared with other alts.

[* there won't be]