Quote from: OROBTC on February 17, 2016, 09:17:48 PM

Quote from: Afrikoin on February 17, 2016, 08:56:04 PM

Quote from: Afrikoin on February 17, 2016, 07:04:35 PM

Bitcoin Reality

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong : Since you have deep knowledge about coins and currencies going back to ancient times, it would be really helpful to get your view of what Bitcoin is or could be as a sort of World Currency. Is it a fad or something that should be taken seriously?
Thank you BH

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/qa/bitcoin-reality/

martin armstrong on Bitcoin

Nice catch.

I would agree with Armstrong that electronic "money" will NOT become any world currency for a long time. There are NO local businesses that I know of (major US city: metro population over 2,000,000) that even take BTC. NO ONE in Peru takes it that I know of.

Bitcoin may catch on as a popular payment option, I hope so.

...

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 18, 2016, 09:06:43 AM

Until now, all crypto coins have been marketed to investors.

Quote from: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.

Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

Bitcoin the better gold.

Word.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 18, 2016, 10:07:47 AM

Quote from: sandiman on February 18, 2016, 09:13:56 AM

This redudancy + partionning paradox is extremely hard to understand for a newbie who's native language is not even english...

It would be really appreciated if someone could rephrase this paradox summing up with easy terms what is the issue and its consequencies Grin

I am years ago of your computer science knowledge and I may stay years ago of your knowledge in this field for the rest of my life since it isn't my study field.

Thank you in advance. Grin

Hopefully r0ach and others can offer their laymen's summaries.

What you need to know is that Ethereum as it is currently designed can't scale just as Bitcoin can't scale, but the level of scaling which the current Ethereum can do is much less than even Bitcoin's current limitation because verification/validation of Serpent scripts takes more resources than verification/validation of ECDSA signatures.

For both Bitcoin and Ethereum, this is not just an issue of block size limitation. The issue is that in order to scale, the mining becomes more centralized. I think you will should note that Bitcoin and all other major coins are entirely centralized already and on the precipice of failure (all of them! study my links!).

Thus Ethereum proposed Casper which is a design that attempts to use sharding (a.k.a. partitions) to improve scaling decentralized. But I explained in this thread, that can't work. To reduce electricity consumption, Ethereum also proposed PoS-like consensus-by-betting with forfeitable deposits. PoS has known failure modes that violate Nash equilibrium.

So the point of all this is that Ethereum and all the rest of the crypto coins have not yet solved the fundamental issue of decentralized consensus.

If you want to read a theoretical discussion of why, I did that too.

Okay that is enough from me. Adios.