Quote from: kokojie on August 22, 2017, 04:27:57 PM

Litecoin not being dominant in transaction has nothing to do with technical, but everything to do with Bitcoin came first, and Litecoin came 2 years after Bitcoin was invented.

If people could choose between 2 chains with equal acceptance now, they would overwhelmingly choose the chain with faster blocks. The fact that Bitcoin has minority marketcap now, is probably related to its high fees and high block time. 99% of altcoins has faster blocks, it was one of the 1st advantages altcoins advertise, eg. Litecoin, think about that.

Yet BCH launches as an altcoin (it's not even pretending to be Bitcoin) and instead of doing "faster blocks", goes "bigger blocks"... Note that if it went the 1 block per minute, it would go 10x the block size, while also being 10x faster.

Yet the market values this equally slow altcoin of 10-min blocks which was just created out of bitcoin, as a 10bn usd market compared to faster solutions that have a multi-year advantage over it.

Then you have senseless who says that no one accepts altcoins yet they have 55% of a 144bn marketcap. So 80bn usd is a useless bubble compared to 65bn of BTC which has all the use? Is it all speculative bullshit?

My take on the situation is this: Genuine crypto transactions are few because they are too geeky/nerdy. The whole interface of wallets, the knowledge required to use them safely (without getting hacked or doing an irreversible mistake), etc etc, is generally out of sync with average joe. So crypto transactions in general don't really "exist" in terms of mass volume. BTC stands out because

a) it is a trading vehicle (a lot of money from/to exchanges)
b) it is the crypto-hub for all altcoin trading (see a)
c) it has a lot of spam by bad actors that want to make block size a political issue
d) it has a lot of coin mixing by hackers, gamblers etc to legitimize coins

...and then what's left is the rest of the "space" to transact normally. And that space is typically non-existent due to (c) and (d) filling up low-priority fees. So regular users have to outbid (c) and (d) in terms of fees in order to send money in an exchange, pay someone, etc etc.

Now altcoins came after bitcoin was invented, but bitcoin's inflation and security model was already baked in. What this means, is that bitcoin can't hope to outbid altcoins in terms of "cheap transactions". As block reward drops, fees have to replace this drop. This was the way it was supposed to work. Altcoins come in and do a flanking attack on the security model of bitcoin, in terms of fees - promising almost zero fees since their value is low and their blockchains underutilized. Yet Bitcoin has to maintain some level of fees to be secure. Even now, these fees are being used to attract hashrate... without the fees, BTC reward per block is 12.5 and with the fees it goes to 15.5 - 16 BTC, which is ~25% higher.

What I think will happen is this: In the long-long term (decades), we'll be able to do everything on-chain. In 20 years a 1gb block might be more than feasible. Right now though it isn't without centralizing bitcoin into a data center and altering its peer-to-peer nature into a client/server model, so we have to play it differently, like LN on top of BTC, "disposable" altcoins that are bloated by microtransactions and then rendered useless for most, etc.

Quote

Kidding? I pay $20 for wires of any size. If I wire $100,000 it costs $20. If I wire $1000 it costs $20. Funds are available immediately during banking hours or on the next business day outside of banking hours. Bitcoin should beat this.

It's already beating it. Bitcoin is global/international, your wires are national. Bitcoin is 24/7/365, banks are ...bank hours (and bank days) only. International wires have extra delays of a couple days. Even the fees are much lower than 20$ - it's just that your tx probably has a lot of inputs and hence larger data size.