Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 31 results by tund3r
The guy in this fails to understand that if you're buying from an ATM you're spending a shit ton of money for the convenience. So saying that the fees are high are normal, that's like going to an ATM that's not owned by your bank and COMPLAINING that you're paying too much money for it. If you don't want convenience, then just go ahead and buy from Coinbase, Paxful, ETC.
Network congestion is temporary, it will all clear over with more innovation occurring throughout time. But yes, I do think people should be able to easier use BTC and get acquainted to it -- but that does come with time.
Innovation is needed but I think now it's more a matter of pride and stubborness than anything else. To implement and have the lightning network work they estimate the block to be 128MB, so they already know it is needed to increase the size and yet, for reasons I fail to understand, it can't be done now causing the netwrok to collapseNetwork congestion is temporary, it will all clear over with more innovation occurring throughout time. But yes, I do think people should be able to easier use BTC and get acquainted to it -- but that does come with time.
We should make it easy for people to use now, there are a lot of people that because of the exposure that bitcoin is having they are giving it a try, what do you think they will think of bitcoin if they try to buy a $10 pizza and they find themselves pay $45 fee??
things like this https://t.co/2CH0YNple7 make the adoption impossible!
I understand all the lightning and shit that will come out in the future, and I also know that in order to work the lightning will need an increased size of blocks! So why not to make it easy for people to use it NOW that are willing to try?
things like this https://t.co/2CH0YNple7 make the adoption impossible!
I understand all the lightning and shit that will come out in the future, and I also know that in order to work the lightning will need an increased size of blocks! So why not to make it easy for people to use it NOW that are willing to try?
Re: [Ann][ICO Complete!!] Loopring -- Decentralised Exchange and Open Protocol
What happens with the total number of coins in circulation?
It was 220 million two days ago and today there are only 62 million.
I also find this coins number very low compared to the total of coins of 1.3 billion
Yes I would like to know as well, I'm interested in investing but the amount of total tokens it's scary
Re: ⚡ [ANN] ⚡ DeepOnion TOR ⚡ DeepVault ⚡ Cryptopia 🚀 Airdrop 24/40 🚀 WE DOMINATE!
We are not letting this thread being compromised. People putting money in Onions should be safe
Just to be fair I see that all the negative trust he received is for asking other people to give him positive trust ... which I agree it's not a nice thing to do at the same time it's not a scam, and given the visibility he has I don't think he would have ever used positive feedback to scam people.
It's a big mistake for someone in his position but again ... he did not ask BTC and run away with the money
Re: Why Bcash will die in 2018 and Bitcoin will be even more valuable
This is not a propaganda, just calling it like it is for the sake of people who are less informed.
I'll leave propaganda to the likes of Ver who, 6 months before Mt Gox went bust, shamelessly took a payment to promote it and vouch for its solvency. The guy is a felon and shill-monger, plain and simple, always has been.
As for Jihan, the only reason he announced Bcash fork is to centralize the Bitcoin name and become the Chairman Mao (Zedong) of Bitcoin. I'm not even going to waste my breath talking about the conman, fake Satoshi, Craig Wright.
Sometimes, when calling out propagandists, you tend to come across as promoting one yourself. This is unavoidable but a spade is a spade.
Dissension, splits motivated by greed inevitably leads to the proverbial tragedy of the commons. We either all win or we all lose.
To the newbies - Don't listen to people who try to drive a wedge between the community to line their own pockets.
There are so many altcoins out there now and each of them has such outstanding, unique, non-cloned value proposition. Some of them are even energy-efficient which is a long-term threat they pose Bitcoin if Bitcoin doesn't adapt and evolve. Sure, a lot of them were developed from bitcoin source code but NONE of them shamelessly jack the Bitcoin name.
Bcash is a minority miner centralized coin with majority control in Bitmain's hands. The ONLY 'value proposition' they have is, "Bitcoin is no longer good for payments due to high fee and chock-full mempool."
I'm sorry but that ain't good enough. Before Bitcoin became so big, it was the same with no fees and fast transactions. You can't say "we're the future because we're where Bitcoin was 5 years ago."
Bcash will run into the same problems if the network ever gets as big as Bitcoin's, which it never will. NOBODY except Bitcoin has run into Bitcoin's problems because they're millions of miles away from having a network as big.
Bitcoin has SegWit which makes off-chain scaling(Lightning Network) with ZERO fees and instant transactions possible, Bcash has no SegWit. Bcash has nothing original going and never will. They even said they would just predictably copy Bitcoin's SegWit and implement off-chain scaling themselves after forking the chain supposedly IN OPPOSITION to SegWit. How ironical and self-contradicting is that?
After Lightning goes live on Bitcoin, the likes of Ethereum, IOTA, Litecoin, ADA etc. will still have their own original chains with unique value propositions but Bcash's only 'untested' claim to usefulness will be redundant.
A word to the wise...
Unless you are a sock puppet, which I don't really blame anyone for being, just don't get sucker punched by baleful propaganda orchestrated by individuals motivated solely by self-interest.
Being a sheep is worse than being a sock puppet.
Bitcoin Judas - https://youtu.be/UP1YsMlrfF0
The Real Satoshi - https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/943919997067264000
I'll leave propaganda to the likes of Ver who, 6 months before Mt Gox went bust, shamelessly took a payment to promote it and vouch for its solvency. The guy is a felon and shill-monger, plain and simple, always has been.
As for Jihan, the only reason he announced Bcash fork is to centralize the Bitcoin name and become the Chairman Mao (Zedong) of Bitcoin. I'm not even going to waste my breath talking about the conman, fake Satoshi, Craig Wright.
Sometimes, when calling out propagandists, you tend to come across as promoting one yourself. This is unavoidable but a spade is a spade.
Dissension, splits motivated by greed inevitably leads to the proverbial tragedy of the commons. We either all win or we all lose.
To the newbies - Don't listen to people who try to drive a wedge between the community to line their own pockets.
There are so many altcoins out there now and each of them has such outstanding, unique, non-cloned value proposition. Some of them are even energy-efficient which is a long-term threat they pose Bitcoin if Bitcoin doesn't adapt and evolve. Sure, a lot of them were developed from bitcoin source code but NONE of them shamelessly jack the Bitcoin name.
Bcash is a minority miner centralized coin with majority control in Bitmain's hands. The ONLY 'value proposition' they have is, "Bitcoin is no longer good for payments due to high fee and chock-full mempool."
I'm sorry but that ain't good enough. Before Bitcoin became so big, it was the same with no fees and fast transactions. You can't say "we're the future because we're where Bitcoin was 5 years ago."
Bcash will run into the same problems if the network ever gets as big as Bitcoin's, which it never will. NOBODY except Bitcoin has run into Bitcoin's problems because they're millions of miles away from having a network as big.
Bitcoin has SegWit which makes off-chain scaling(Lightning Network) with ZERO fees and instant transactions possible, Bcash has no SegWit. Bcash has nothing original going and never will. They even said they would just predictably copy Bitcoin's SegWit and implement off-chain scaling themselves after forking the chain supposedly IN OPPOSITION to SegWit. How ironical and self-contradicting is that?
After Lightning goes live on Bitcoin, the likes of Ethereum, IOTA, Litecoin, ADA etc. will still have their own original chains with unique value propositions but Bcash's only 'untested' claim to usefulness will be redundant.
A word to the wise...
Unless you are a sock puppet, which I don't really blame anyone for being, just don't get sucker punched by baleful propaganda orchestrated by individuals motivated solely by self-interest.
Being a sheep is worse than being a sock puppet.
Bitcoin Judas - https://youtu.be/UP1YsMlrfF0
The Real Satoshi - https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/943919997067264000
what does bitcoin judas mean? is it something positive?
regards
No. The video shows the face of Bcash, who defected the real bitcoin to pump and profit from a centralized clone coin, promoting and vouching for the solvency of a shady exchange which went bankrupt in 2014, few months after the video was made.
Put simply, Bcash is a blatant attempt to centralize Bitcoin by chinese mining cartel, Bitmain. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of how Bitcoin works can see it but the target for Bcash are newbies who are vulnerable and easily manipulated.
Just to recap ... So far I didn't hear a single valid argument that says why we shouldn't improve the system
And I didn't hear a single suggestion of an "improvement" that would actually work, nor did the original post that started this thread ask for any suggestions for improvements.
The original post only asked how we can "get it back on track" with the whitepaper, and since it is already on track with the whitepaper that particular question is meaningless.
If you want suggestions on how we can handle more transactions with lower fees, then you should have asked that.
Here are some suggestions for you:
- Use SegWit addresses
- Participate in the development, testing, and use of Lightning Network
- Take low value transactions off-chain
- Come up with a viable change to the protocol that increases on-chain scalability, get it coded up, convince people to use it
- Go use some other coin if you don't like what Bitcoin is doing
the segwit address doens't look like it's solving the problem, did it?
what's your estimate time to have the lightning network ready? I think it will take to much time
Everyone has the right to transact the amount of cash that wants and given that bitcoin is supposed to be electronic cash every user should be guaranteed the right to transact the amount he wants and the fee should be accessible. the solution you are proposing is fascist and UNACCEPTABLE!
increase the blocksize to 2MB it's a viable, fast and already coded solution, at least until the lightning network is ready (if you think that that's the real solution)
Are you the owner of bitcoin? who are you to tell me I should go use another coin?
To the miners won't change much if the fee comes from mining 2 transactions or one,
The miners only care about how much fee is paid per block weight unit.
The fact is that right now the system is able to process 3 transactions per second,
The fact is that SegWit has increased that number. You are quoting an old and outdated number.
My guess is the miners would be extremely happy to be able to have a system to process more than 3 transactions per second and win a lower fee from each of them
Your guess is provably be wrong.
Bitcoin Cash already exists as a protocol. It allows up to 8 MB of block space, which increases the quantity of average size transactions from 3 per second to 24 per second. And yet, the majority of miners are choosing to mine on the Bitcoin Blockchain where they get higher fees, but less transactions.
What's that number now? it's enough to support the transaction needed by the world economy?
Don't you think the miners are choosing to mine bitcoin because of the value of the coin? what's going to happen if the value of bitcoin cash raises?
and still, I haven't heard a convincing motivation to not to improve a system that cannot support the number of transactions that needs to support
Just to recap ... So far I didn't hear a single valid argument that says why we shouldn't improve the system, I just heard someone telling me I'm stupid wanting to use my cash to pay something is worth less than thousands dollar (or at least 0.1 bitcoins so nobody corrects me)
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
There is no purpose for any of this! None of this is ideal! The problem is a decentralized group of developers not willing to agree on a single direction. That's why we've seen several hard forks, coup attempts, trying to evolve Bitcoin to something better.
What's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Bitcoin hasn't drifted from the whitepaper, it's just matured and grown such that it needs to be updated to evolve with the growing demand.
Now you made him mad! The liom came out!
I want to agree and also disagree.
Maybe if you are on the miners side you can understand it and I have heard it.
True that it is congested. We are having problems now because of the overload transactions that are making a wall for the others to enter.
Who made this? Us.
We are so cheap that we want an almost free transaction and miners needs to make a living too. (Although some of them are really greedy).
Maybe after all of this is cleaned up we should start changing how we do our txs.
given that the amount you are suggesting guarantee the transaction, in my opinion it doesn't,
You are welcome to your own opinion.
I'll stick with the facts.
$3.90 to transfer the equivalent of $20 worth of bitcoin is around 20% premium on the transaction. A credit card charges 3% to the merchant.
The fees system was designed by Satoshi to INTENTIONALLY DISCOURAGE use of bitcoin blockchain transactions for smaller value amounts. This makes sure that there is always space available in the blockchain for the transactions with the highest value to byte-size ratio.
given that the amount you are suggesting guarantee the transaction, in my opinion it doesn't,
You are welcome to your own opinion.
I'll stick with the facts.
$3.90 to transfer the equivalent of $20 worth of bitcoin is around 20% premium on the transaction. A credit card charges 3% to the merchant.
Exactly. This is why I would not send an on-chain bitcoin transaction to pay for $20 worth of product or service.
There are multiple ways a business could handle it, but in the end on-chain transactions are very valuable things. Very valuable things are expensive.
I wouldn't use a $14000 diamond to trade for something that is worth $20.
I wouldn't use $14000 worth of gold to trade for something that is worth $20.
I wouldn't use a $14000 car to trade for something that is worth $20.
I also wouldn't use a $14000 bitcoin to trade for something that is worth $20.
Note that the transaction fee is based on what the transaction fee is paying for (space in the blockchain). It is NOT based on the value of the bitcoins you are transfering. So, a 192 byte transaction that transfers 1 BTC ($14,500 worth of bitcoin) is going to cost the same in fees as a 192 byte transaction that transfers 0.00137931 BTC ($20 worth of bitcoin). This is because in BOTH CASES the fees are paying for 192 bytes of space in the blockchain.
The fees system was designed by Satoshi to INTENTIONALLY DISCOURAGE use of bitcoin blockchain transactions for smaller value amounts. This makes sure that there is always space available in the blockchain for the transactions with the highest value to byte-size ratio.
This was the intended design from the beginning. Your choice is to create smaller transactions, pay higher fees, or leave bitcoin to those that are willing and able to create smaller transactions and pay higher fees. This is what the whitepaper was created for. This is what Satoshi's code was designed for. This is how bitcoin always has worked, and always will work.
I'm sorry, does the whitepaper say bitcoin is a digital diamond or does it say it's a digital cash?
Fast confirmation time? if I want to transfer $20 what would be your suggested transaction fee to make sure the transaction is actually confirmed? (not fast, I just want to be sure the transaction will occur)
First of all, you can't transfer $20 with the bitcoin protocol. You can't transfer U.S. dollars at all. You can ONLY transfer bitcoins.
I assume you are asking about transferring $20 worth of bitcoins? But, since the exchange rate of bitcoins is constantly changing depending on current demand in the market, the actual amount of bitcoins will be different now than earlier or later.
For the sake of discussion, lets go with an exchange rate of $14500 per bitcoin.
So, what I think you are actually asking is:
"If I want to send 0.00137931 BTC (1.37931 millibitcoins) what would your suggested transaction fee be to make sure the transaction confirms?"
The answer to that question is also constantly changing, and it depends significantly on how you received those 0.00137931 bitcoins.
That being said...
Based on this chart:
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2h
It looks (given the network conditions at the time that I am writing this post) like you can expect to get your transaction confirmed if you pay a fee of at least 0.00000140 BTC (0.00140 millibitcoins) per byte.
Lets assume that you previously received a payment of exactly 0.00164811 BTC to a traditional P2PKH address (address that starts with a 1) which you have not yet spent. In that case, you could expect to be able to create a transaction sending 0.00137931 BTC which requires no more than 192 bytes and therefore a transaction fee of only 0.00026880 BTC (approximately $3.90 worth of bitcoins at the exchange rate of $14500)
If you received a slightly smaller payment to a SegWit address, then you could pay an even smaller fee.
If you are willing to wait a long time for confirmation (a few weeks), you might be able to pay a fee as low as 0.00000100 BTC per byte (only 0.00019200 BTC in the above example).
given that the amount you are suggesting guarantee the transaction, in my opinion it doesn't, $3.90 to transfer the equivalent of $20 worth of bitcoin is around 20% premium on the transaction. A credit card charges 3% to the merchant.
Its really disheartening to see situation get worse to this level and I see a lot of people getting shut out from investing into bitcoin. A lot of people would want to invest but want to try with little amount to have a feel of what it is about but now, that seems like a dream whose possibility to be a reality is only in that dream, yet I see a lot of people still making a case as to why that is happening. I guess the inflow that should come into bitcoin, will have to move on to other alternatives.
I think soon someone will be able to fork effectively, or bitcoin cash will ultimately take over ... I hope this moment comes soon
Nothing is going on with bitcoin per se, what you are witnessing is first hand greed and what happens when a group of people don't agree.
Greed does not cause excessive transaction fees.
The interesting fact of transaction fees is that the people who receive them (the miners) have no control over their amount.
Users (you and I) have demanded fast confirmation times, so the wallet developers have responded, with large suggested transaction fees, based on transaction fees of other unconfirmed transactions.
This is the answer that I wish to never have to see ...
Don't ask the questions if you don't want the answers.
negletting problems is the worst way to deal with it!
You stated a few things that weren't true, and then asked why bitcoin was no longer doing what the whitepaper said.
I pointed out where you were wrong.
That has nothing to do with "negletting problems".
do you think it's normal a fee of $60 to transfer $15?
No. I think you are foolish to spend a $60 fee to transfer $15.
However, I support your right to waste money in that way if you wish to.
Do you think it's sustainable?
Think what is sustainable?
Bitcoin fees are designed to be self-sustaining.
If the fee is too high, then less people will send Bitcoin transactions. If less people send Bitcoin transactions, then there will be more room in the blockchain at lower fees. If there is more room in the blockchain at lower fees, then more people will send Bitcoin transactions. If more people send Bitcoin transactions, then there is less room in the blockchain at lower fees. These opposing financial incentives force the blocks to fill up with transactions at exactly the fees that are sustainable (because if they are not sustainable, then there will be less transactions and therefore cheaper fees).
When you pay with cash you need to pay a 600% fee on the transaction? (or 6000% if I want to buy an icecream?).
I don't buy icecream with Bitcoin.
You are welcome to do so, but that seems like a poor choice of transaction for a system as important, significant, and expensive as Bitcoin.
So it's cash but I can't buy icecreams or even a new iphone would be too expensive to buy since I'm not going to pay a 10% premium to pay it with bitcoin. In Venezuela it would be too expensive to buy a house with bitcoin! what's your definition of cash?
I don't like him but given this answers Roger Ver is so right in what he says and as much I don't like the project Bitcoin Cash it is much closer to the whitepaper then what Bitcoin Core now is ... there are thousands of people sharing my same concern and instead of receving answer with convincing solution we are considered stupid ... I hope someone else will be able to take on this project
Everything that you quoted from the whitepaper is still true.
Yep. Still peer-to-peer. Still electronic. Still cash.
Yep. Can still send directly from one party to another.
Yep. Transactions still complete without any need for a financial institution.
Yep. Still using digital signatures.
Yep. Still don't need a trusted third party to prevent double-spending.
Yep. Still using proof-of-work with an ongoing chain to timestamp transactions.
Yep. Still impossible to change the record without re-doing all the proof-of-work.
Yep. Still using the longest valid chain. Longest chain is still proof that it came from the largest pool of hashing power.
Yep. Bitcoin is still vulnerable to a 51% attack, and as long as the majority is not cooperating to
attack the network, Bitcoin is still secure.
Yep, the network is still only minimally structured, and messages are on a best effort basis.
Yep. My node still leaves and rejoins the network all the time.
Yep. Longest proof-of-work is still reliable proof of what happened.
FURTHERMORE, YOU FORGOT TO QUOTE THIS PART OF THE WHITEPAPER:
What do you know, the exact thing you are complaining about (transaction fees) are described right there in the whitepaper.
Lets take a look at the rest of your nonsense post:
What transaction pool? Please show me in the whitepaper where is says anything about a "transaction pool".
Bitcoin doesn't have a "transaction pool".
How exactly are you going to decide what fee I am willing to pay?
That's just a business decision. It has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. Exchanges could just pass the cost of fees on to their users if they want to.
The protocol doesn't set the fees. The users do. There is limited space available in a block for transactions. If someone is willing to pay for the space, they get it.
Of course it is.
It allows online payments to anybody that is willing to pay a competitive price for block space. That's all it was ever intended to do.
Double spending of a confirmed transaction is an impossibility unless there is a 51% attack. This has always been true. This is still true. If you are choosing to accept unconfirmed transactions, then you are choosing to expose yourself to that risk. That has always been true. That is still true.
I get the impression that you are not reading it at all. You are imagining what you want bitcoin to be for you, and complaining that it isn't living up to your expectations. Perhaps if you took the time to set your expectations properly (by actually reading the whitepaper), you wouldn't be so disappointed.
Distant in what way?
It is on track.
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash
Yep. Still peer-to-peer. Still electronic. Still cash.
would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another
Yep. Can still send directly from one party to another.
without going through a financial institution.
Yep. Transactions still complete without any need for a financial institution.
Digital signatures provide part of the solution,
Yep. Still using digital signatures.
but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
Yep. Still don't need a trusted third party to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work,
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work,
Yep. Still using proof-of-work with an ongoing chain to timestamp transactions.
forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.
Yep. Still impossible to change the record without re-doing all the proof-of-work.
The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.
Yep. Still using the longest valid chain. Longest chain is still proof that it came from the largest pool of hashing power.
As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
Yep. Bitcoin is still vulnerable to a 51% attack, and as long as the majority is not cooperating to
attack the network, Bitcoin is still secure.
The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis,
basis,
Yep, the network is still only minimally structured, and messages are on a best effort basis.
and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will,
Yep. My node still leaves and rejoins the network all the time.
accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
Yep. Longest proof-of-work is still reliable proof of what happened.
FURTHERMORE, YOU FORGOT TO QUOTE THIS PART OF THE WHITEPAPER:
Quote
The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.
What do you know, the exact thing you are complaining about (transaction fees) are described right there in the whitepaper.
Lets take a look at the rest of your nonsense post:
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool,
What transaction pool? Please show me in the whitepaper where is says anything about a "transaction pool".
Bitcoin doesn't have a "transaction pool".
having the fees so high
How exactly are you going to decide what fee I am willing to pay?
that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
That's just a business decision. It has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. Exchanges could just pass the cost of fees on to their users if they want to.
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
The protocol doesn't set the fees. The users do. There is limited space available in a block for transactions. If someone is willing to pay for the space, they get it.
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore,
Of course it is.
it doesn't allow online payments
It allows online payments to anybody that is willing to pay a competitive price for block space. That's all it was ever intended to do.
and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Double spending of a confirmed transaction is an impossibility unless there is a 51% attack. This has always been true. This is still true. If you are choosing to accept unconfirmed transactions, then you are choosing to expose yourself to that risk. That has always been true. That is still true.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper?
I get the impression that you are not reading it at all. You are imagining what you want bitcoin to be for you, and complaining that it isn't living up to your expectations. Perhaps if you took the time to set your expectations properly (by actually reading the whitepaper), you wouldn't be so disappointed.
if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper?
Distant in what way?
What can we do to have it back on track?
It is on track.
This is the answer that I wish to never have to see ... negletting problems is the worst way to deal with it! do you think it's normal a fee of $60 to transfer $15? Do you think it's sustainable? When you pay with cash you need to pay a 600% fee on the transaction? (or 6000% if I want to buy an icecream?).
Nothing is going on with bitcoin per se, what you are witnessing is first hand greed and what happens when a group of people don't agree. It should be no surprise where there are hundreds of millions and billions of dollars there is some form of corruption. I wish we could live in a utopia that didn't do this but this is the way the world is and you would be naive to not expect it especially in this industry.
The question is what can we do to hold those people accountable? Right now looks like the problem is evident and to me il looks like a bunch of kids are infesting twitter and reddit just trolling and harrassing people around instead of trying to solve the problem, and it looks like those trolls are in charge of what should be what is the revolution of our times. I think Bitcoin deserves something better, again, what can we do?
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
There is no purpose for any of this! None of this is ideal! The problem is a decentralized group of developers not willing to agree on a single direction. That's why we've seen several hard forks, coup attempts, trying to evolve Bitcoin to something better.
What's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
Bitcoin hasn't drifted from the whitepaper, it's just matured and grown such that it needs to be updated to evolve with the growing demand.
Hi Guys,
maybe someone can help me understand because I'm having really hard time and I'm sure there are very good reasons!
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
Reading the whitepaper I read:
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore, it doesn't allow online payments (unless you are buying a lambo but I doubt bitcoin purpose is to buy lambos) and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper? if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?
maybe someone can help me understand because I'm having really hard time and I'm sure there are very good reasons!
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool, having the fees so high that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
Reading the whitepaper I read:
Quote
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore, it doesn't allow online payments (unless you are buying a lambo but I doubt bitcoin purpose is to buy lambos) and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper? if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper? What can we do to have it back on track?