Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • November 21, 2017, 03:18 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?  (Read 260428 times)

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,402
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #925 on: November 10, 2017, 02:49 PM »
Well... BTC is certainly taking a Red Candle ride through the freaking floor now..

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,249
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #926 on: November 10, 2017, 11:21 PM »
@MOUSER

The real question is.. some of you crazy people who were ranting about it, and telling us how bitcoin was going to take off during the early days of it.. are any of you rich enough to retire and bankroll the rest of us yet?



Well, I can't bankroll the rest of you, but I can certainly bankroll myself.

I'm not super wealthy, but, I have options open to me and some freedom to choose what I work on.


@DEOZAAN

Would you mind briefly explaining how you solved the scalability issues? And what you mean by that? Or if it's in the whitepaper just say so and I'll try to get the time to finally read through it.


The very short answer is "Game Channels". It's a form of trustless off-chain scaling. You can read the academic paper in the journal Leger (a crypto journal) here:

https://www.ledgerjo...r/article/view/15/64

It's also in the endnotes in the White Paper. The White Paper explains it briefly.

You can think of it like this... You have the Chimaera blockchain, and then every single game running on the Chimaera platform has its own blockchain where size doesn't matter. (Get your mind out of the gutter!)

That's a bit crude, but should give you an idea.

But the reason I ask is because scalability seems to be a major issue in most of the major cryptos, especially Bitcoin. There are lots of interesting ideas out there on how to resolve or work around the issues, but as far as I know things like sidechains (Lightning, Raiden, Plasma, etc.,) are all still currently being researched and/or developed but nothing is actually released and running on the network(s) yet. If you're talking about scalability in a similar sense as for other blockchains, then solving the scalability issues could be really big news for cryptocurrency in general. :Thmbsup:

What can I say? We're ahead of the curve! :D


@MOUSER

Due to encouragement of the bitcoin evangelists here on DC I did eventually provide a bitcoin address for people who wanted to donate to DC via bitcoin, back in 2015.

There have been a total of 12 payments received in that 2 year period.

Total received from those 12 payments was 287mBTC which apparently is worth about $2,000 USD currently  :huh:


That's great! Keep it! HODL! :D

You perked my interest, so I went back through my wallet to have a peek:

https://blockchain.i...548e7e90f02934c1b170

https://blockchain.i...115e1a531b2cbf1fc3a6

Checking again... Geez... That's more than I've donated in fiat to you. I'm pretty sure I've donated to DC a few times with fiat.

HODL~!


@TOMOS - @DEOZAAN

That's about $5 to send a transaction at current prices. And if you have a bunch of small amounts in different addresses, which is the recommended way to do it for privacy, transactions can easily be over 1,000 bytes (or over $20 in fees to send a transaction). And if you try to pay a lower fee, you could be waiting days before your transaction finally goes through, if it ever does.

it's ironic that it's so user-un-friendly, considering the opposite was the intention.
Was that covered here in this thread -- how that changed (I think it was, but I'm being a lazy beggar here - I mostly work on memory first, then search, but tonight I'm leaving out the search part...)


A few screwey things there...

@DEOZAAN

That's about $5 to send a transaction at current prices. And if you have a bunch of small amounts in different addresses, which is the recommended way to do it for privacy, transactions can easily be over 1,000 bytes (or over $20 in fees to send a transaction). And if you try to pay a lower fee, you could be waiting days before your transaction finally goes through, if it ever does.


You can choose your transaction fee rate. You're not forced to spend anything. The only issue is that the transaction may take longer.

I regularly send BTC to people and set a lower fee because I don't care if they get it in 12 seconds or 12 hours. It's all close enough.


@TOMOS

it's ironic that it's so user-un-friendly, considering the opposite was the intention.

That's soooooo far from the truth.

Have you ever had to send money to people in another country?

It's not easy.

I recently had to send funds to a company to pay for a service.

I did it in 2 parts:

1) BTC
2) Fiat

BTC was easy. I sent it. Done.

Cost me about $1.80 CAD. I could've spent less on that fee.

Fiat? F**king nightmare.

I had to drive almost an hour to another town to get to the bank to wire $$$.

The teller there didn't know how to do it. After 10 minutes.

I waited another 15 minutes.

Then it took 30 minutes to send.

The transaction fee cost me $40 CAD. That's over 22x what I spent sending BTC.

It cost me gas. Probably around $30 or $40 CAD there. Call it $35.

So, about 3 hours of my time, plus around $75 in costs (not including paying for parking), and that's the fiat world.

Sorry. No. BTC is far better. Crypto is better. By leaps and bounds.

Summary:

BTC COSTS:
2 minutes & $1.80 CAD

FIAT COSTS:
180 minutes & $75.00 CAD

Now... for a $2 coffee at a shop... The Lightning Networks are coming. That's next year.

But, even forgetting that, it's still easier to send BTC to a friend than to send fiat.

I don't send my friends BTC. I send fiat. Because it's less valuable. I HODL. :)


@TOMOS

Was that covered here in this thread -- how that changed (I think it was, but I'm being a lazy beggar here - I mostly work on memory first, then search, but tonight I'm leaving out the search part...)


We all do it. :D


@DEOZAAN

Back when I first got into Bitcoin toward the end of 2015, I sent a test transaction to Renegade after he sent me what was then just a few dollars worth of BTC (now worth almost $200! Wish I had kept it...). I paid 5 sat/byte for that transaction, which at the time was less than 1 cent. But now the recommended fee is 300 sat/byte to get your transaction included quickly.


Heh! I remember that!

I sent at the time about $10 USD, and Deozaan sent back about $0.40.

Now, for many of my transactions I'm spending in the area of 50k satoshis to 2k satoshis. It depends on how quickly I want it to arrive.


@DEOZAAN

To further illustrate the point: Just for fun back in 2015 I gave a friend $1 worth of BTC for Christmas (the low value was an inside joke) to try to get him interested in cryptocurrency. It failed to pique his interest. With the value of BTC going up so much this year (by my calculations that $1 gift is now worth about $22.50), he has finally taken an interest in crypto, and asked me how to access the funds I gave him. But it would cost ~$5 in transaction fees for him to do anything with it so I've told him not to bother.

You can spend MUCH less. It's not hard.

The expensive fees are all fiat fees.


@DEOZAAN

In a nutshell: The Bitcoin "Core" developers refuse to increase the blocksize limit from 1MB to anything larger even though people and developers and businesses have been clamoring for an increase for years. So the blocks are at full capacity. Which means if you want your transaction included in the blockchain, you need to compete with others for the limited space in each block. The only way to incentivize a miner to include your transaction over others is by paying higher fees than others. But everyone else is also trying to pay higher fees than everyone else so they can get their transaction included, so the fees just go higher and higher. Meanwhile more and more transactions are being added to the backlog. So if you intentionally try to get away with paying a low fee, you could be waiting days for your transaction to clear (the backlog tends to catch up over the weekend). And even if you pay what your software deems a decent fee, but for some reason fees skyrocket due to sudden increased demand (making miners consider your fee to be a comparatively "low" fee), then you could be waiting days for your transaction to clear anyway.


The Core devs rock.

Also, in Chimaera, our Lead Blockchain Developer is a Bitcoin Core contributor.

But, for the block size, that's a bit misleading.

The idea is to off-load transactions into Lightning Networks. That will solve scaling issue massively.

Those will take off next year.

This is just the beginning. There's a long way to go.

Right now Bitcoin is NOTHING in the financial world. It's a blip. A curiosity.

If you're not in already, do your due diligence and think about whether BTC has a place in your portfolio.












Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 8,140
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #927 on: November 11, 2017, 11:35 AM »
The Core devs rock.

I'm really surprised you support the Core devs (especially Blockstream) after all the censorship they're implicitly advocating and participating in. I would have expected you to be all over the conspiracies that they're being paid off by "the big, evil" banks to cripple or destroy Bitcoin from within. :huh:



While the rest of this is all in response to things you said, it's not necessarily all a direct response to you. :)

But, for the block size, that's a bit misleading.

The idea is to off-load transactions into Lightning Networks. That will solve scaling issue massively.

Those will take off next year.

My understanding is that the Lightning Network has been "18 months away" for over two, maybe three, years. And that they're still saying it's 18 months away. I know this is groundbreaking technology that is still being researched and developed, so delays should be expected. I'm just saying I don't think we'll see it next year. But it would be cool if I was wrong about that.

Lightning does sound like a cool scaling solution. But when I learned more about it and thought about what life would be like with Lightning, in real-life, practical, every-day use, I came to the conclusion that it naturally leads to something that is very much like the current traditional banking system. They advertise Lightning as a way to "open channels" with anybody you want so you can send funds back and forth to each other off-chain, to avoid the high fees associated with doing transactions on-chain. Sounds cool, until you realize that (1) there would not be any high fees to perform on-chain transactions if the blocksize limit was increased, so in that regard Lightning is a solution to an artificially created problem. That's not to say that it won't be a valid way to assist in scaling in the future, but at the very least there is an artificial demand being created for off-chain scaling (with technology that doesn't exist yet, such as Lightning) when currently on-chain scaling is very simple to accomplish and very doable with current technology that exists right now. But ignoring all that, (2) in order to create a Lightning channel you need to lock your funds up in the channel before you can use them. In other words, it's kind of like a pre-paid gift card. You have to preload it, and then you can pay any amount up to how much you preloaded it with, over many smaller transactions. Of course, that's not a great analogy because those people can also pay you, so you can send funds back and forth to each other. But I don't know about you, but the people I pay generally don't pay me. And the people who pay me generally don't get paid by me. In other words, for the vast majority of entities I interact with financially, the payments are largely unidirectional. So I'd need to open separate channels with each of these people in order to send/receive funds to/from them, which is a lot like the gift-card analogy after all. And don't forget that each time you open (or close) a channel it costs an expensive BTC transaction fee. It's a mess.

So the next obvious solution is for the "hub and spoke" system, where there are a few big Lightning Hubs that people create channels with, and those hubs have channels opened with each other, and instead of sending your funds straight to Alice, you send them to your hub, which sends them to Alice's hub, which sends them to Alice. And everybody (for the most part) uses one or two of the few/several big hubs and no one interacts directly with each other anymore because on-chain fees have gotten prohibitively expensive.

Starting to sound familiar? Isn't that just like our current banking system? I don't actually pay Walmart or Home Depot. I deposit my money into my bank (create a channel with a hub) and then when I want to buy something from someone, I tell my bank (my hub) to pay their bank (their hub). Only lightning is worse than the current banking system because the limited blocksize limit means it will be expensive to deposit your money into your "bank," and it will be expensive to withdraw your money from your "bank," should you ever need or want to use Bitcoin as cash (person to person) without involving one or more third-parties.

And (3) since these big banks/hubs will need a lot of money for these big channels being opened with everyone, they'll likely need to follow KYC laws, requiring you to give them your personal information so they can make sure you're not laundering money or supporting terrorists or whatever. As such, if they know who you are, and they don't like you or the causes you support (or the people you're trying to send money to), they can refuse to process your transactions, and now you've reached a point where BTC itself is too expensive to use because the blocks are full, and the Lightning networks can censor transactions they don't like (or are compelled to by governments).

I'm not saying Lightning is intrinsically bad. I think it could be a very useful tool in some circumstances. But I do think the consequences of essentially forcing it onto everyone in the BTC ecosystem is bad for everyone and is bad for BTC itself.


This is just the beginning. There's a long way to go.

Indeed. IMO, fees will continue to rise without on-chain scaling.

Right now Bitcoin is NOTHING in the financial world. It's a blip. A curiosity.

Imagine where Bitcoin could be if adoption and use hadn't been stalled for the past ~two years because of increasing fees and confirmation times. :(


If you're not in already, do your due diligence and think about whether BTC has a place in your portfolio.

I think that Segwit2X was Bitcoin's last hope of being usable as originally intended. With the cancellation of it, and it having sealed Core's scaling roadmap, I am no longer interested in what Bitcoin has to offer, technologically. It offers me virtually no benefit over the current fiat system (I've only ever wired money once in my life, and that was over 15 years ago, but yeah, it was unpleasant and expensive). I'd be a much richer man at the end of my life with inflation slowly devaluing my currency by 2-5% per year than if I had to pay $5-$25 (or more) in fees every time I spend any amount of money. And for anything that Bitcoin does do better than fiat, there are other cryptos that do it even better.

I'm not fully out of BTC yet, but I think I will be soon. I know this is probably premature to say since it has only been a few days, but the market seems to agree with me thus far, given the sharp rise in value of Bitcoin Cash and the not-insignificant drop in value in BTC since Segwit2X was canceled. I'm not saying BTC is dead or that it will be worthless or is a bad long-term investment or whatever. I'm just saying that it is not the technology that I got so excited about a couple years ago. It has been co-opted and changed into something else much less useful and much less interesting.

None of what I've said should be taken as investment advice. I definitely agree that people need to do their due diligence and decide whether BTC has a place in their portfolio. I'm just saying that in the past, Bitcoin's virtually free transactions, relatively instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world, and at any time, were paradigm-shifting features granting enormous freedoms. But many of those freedoms have disappeared or are in the process of being hobbled. "Nobody" uses Bitcoin anymore. They just HODL, hoping the price will go up and make them rich. People are buying it because the price is going up. The price is going up because people are buying it. But I don't really see the underlying value anymore in its current form and further down the path that Core is planning to take it.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 11:50 AM by Deozaan »

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 8,140
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #928 on: November 12, 2017, 11:36 AM »
This is insane!

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 950 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 214,700 satoshis.

It seems my hypothetical example from the other day was prophetic.

I made a transaction yesterday and paid 310 satoshi/byte which was a recommended value. But there's been such a high demand that fees have shot up and now my transaction has been stuck in limbo for about 24 hours and there's nothing I can do about it.

Meanwhile, the value of my stuck transaction is plummeting and the value of virtually everything else is going up.

The only reason the price of Bitcoin isn't crashing even faster is because no one can move their funds out of it!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 04:08 PM by Deozaan »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,756
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #929 on: November 12, 2017, 01:39 PM »
What @Deozaan writes would seem to indicate that not only do bitcoin-type assets suffer from price instability, theft/fraud, inadvertent loss (QED), but the trading mechanisms for them are also subject to episodic interruptions, rendering them temporarily illiquid at those times and potentially worthless.
So, if it's not all media "hype" against bitcoins, then we seem to have:
  • apparently not much good as a currency.
  • apparently not a safe or liquid store of value.
  • an apparently speculative/risky and costly(?) "fiduciary instrument" to trade with.
    ____________________________
Reminds me of a friend of mine who lost his shirt and his job through betting on the gee-gees, whilst all the time telling me what big wins were in the offing.

So, in the Q: "Does anyone here use Bitcoins?":
  • what exactly is the meaning and supposed purpose of "use"?
  • why have Goldman Sachs expressed an interest in bitcoins?

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,756
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #930 on: November 17, 2017, 08:33 PM »
Crikey, as if on cue, Falkvinge.net makes similar (and more perspicacious) points to mine:
What if new Google management decided that a search should cost $20, take eight hours, and be deliberately unreliable? (Bitcoin.)

Worth a read.


Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 8,140
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #931 on: November 17, 2017, 10:09 PM »
The Blockstream fanboys would further point at bitcoin’s new uselessness as a sign of its success, believe it or not, drawing the analogy “nobody goes to that restaurant anymore, because it’s too crowded”, with the subtext that a crowded restaurant must be successful. But this is not success; this is utter failure to scale exponentially when you’re an Internet startup, and it spells dooooooooooom.

It's become a meme to laugh at all the "Bitcoin is dead" articles on the internet. But I think it's finally true. It has many names these days: Bitcoin, Bitcoin Legacy, Bitcoin Segwit, Bitcoin Core. Whatever you call it, it has absolutely failed as a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system."

I don't know what the Bitcoin Segwit fork is. It frustrates me. It befuddles me. I see virtually no utility for it in its current state. I mean, sure, if you're moving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth (or more) around, especially across borders, then sure I guess a $5-$70 fee to get your transaction confirmed in the next hour or so is pretty good. But for the majority of the first-world, the traditional banking system is in many ways superior, or at least as good. And for the much of the third-world, whom Bitcoin was supposed to "bank the unbanked," the fee for a single transaction now costs more than they live on in a single day. Yet for some reason the Bitcoin price keeps going up and I sure can't see why. Maybe Falkvinge is onto something about it being propped up by Tether (i.e., it has essentially become a ponzi (or--and I can't believe I'm actually saying this--tulip mania), backed by nothing, and it's gonna come crashing down hard in a few years).

And so here we are in 2017, with a bitcoin that nobody I know uses for anything practical (last time I used it for something was about six weeks ago, when I bought a burger with bitcoin, which cost me about $2.50 in transaction fees, just as much as the burger itself; at least I didn’t have to wait eight to ten hours for the burger). What’s new on the scene in 2017 is something called a US Dollar Tether.

You see, you can’t buy big quantities of bitcoin — which is more or less “Blockstream stock” at this point — directly, not in amounts of millions of US Dollars. So this thing called Tether popped up, where a company named Tether claimed to issue US Dollar Tether, where one Tether was supposed to be good for exactly one US dollar. Today, the bitcoin price (the price of something that is unreliable, slow, and expensive, and which nobody uses anymore for anything remotely practical) isn’t driven up by people buying it for US Dollars anymore, but by institutions buying it for large amounts of Tether, which is “kind-of-dollars-but-not-really-but-we-still-pretend-so”.

The company Tether insists that they have backing; every Tether has a US Dollar backing it. There has been no proof to this. There have just been regular conjurings-up of new batches of ten, twenty, thirty million Tethers — not US Dollars, but Tethers — that are spent pushing up the bitcoin price as though the Tethers were dollars, and this happens basically every time the Blockstream PR machine happens to need a little boost. Maybe the Tethers are backed by dollars on a one-to-one ratio, as is asserted and refused to be proven. Maybe they aren’t. Sure as hell doesn’t look like they are.

This whole story reeks of a lot of people going to a lot of prison in a few years.

Everybody's buying it hoping the price will go up. The price is going up because everybody's buying it. But Blockstream/Core have removed the foundation by intentionally crippling it. Adoption has stalled. Nobody really uses it for anything but speculation/trading/hodling. Maybe I lack vision, but as long as it continues down this path, I don't see how it won't come crumbling down eventually.

Bitcoin has a problem when one its most ardent supporters you know says things like this:

I don't send my friends BTC. I send fiat.

Whatever Bitcoin Segwit is, it is definitely not the Bitcoin I got obsessed with a mere 2 years ago. Bitcoin Cash, on the other hand, has me cautiously optimistic. I think is has the potential to be the David to Bitcoin Segwit's Goliath, and return Bitcoin (Cash) to what it was originally intended to be: Peer-to-peer electronic cash which you actually can (and want to) send to your friends.

But I'm not confident it can overcome the massive censorship and smear campaign(s). I'm not sure it can overcome the public perception that Bitcoin (Segwit) is the "real" Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is just some "pump and dump altcoin" (to put it nicely).

And I'm also not sure what any variant of Bitcoin offers these days over other cryptos that haven't had development stalled for the past 2 years. I think Dash has integrated some cool features (like InstantSend, PrivateSend, and their treasury to help fund continued development). I think Ethereum is pretty interesting because you can run programs on the blockchain.

Right now, Bitcoin is the top dog in the crypto-space. There's no denying it. And it's rather telling that every other form of cryptocurrency (including the Bitcoin forks) is generally referred to as an altcoin. But innovation has continued in the cryptocurrency scene the past couple years while Bitcoin has stalled and even regressed in its usefulness, adoption, and marketshare. And I'm starting to wonder if, in another decade or so, we'll think of Bitcoin as we now think of MySpace.

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 8,999
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #932 on: November 17, 2017, 10:38 PM »
Bitcoin has a problem when one its most ardent supporters you know says things like this:

Quote from: Renegade on November 11, 2017, 01:21 AM
I don't send my friends BTC. I send fiat.


That was taken horribly out of context.

I don't send my friends BTC. I send fiat. Because it's less valuable. I HODL.

In other words, he sends fiat because fiat won't go up in value.  Bitcoin will.  BTW, HODL means to hold, as many people do with stocks.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 06:34 AM by wraith808 »

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,890
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #933 on: November 18, 2017, 03:58 AM »
^ quotes got a bit messed up there wraith, but point still clear.

Out-of-context quotes aside, what you write Deozaan, sounds very convincing to me.
Tom

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 8,999
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #934 on: November 18, 2017, 09:19 AM »
quotes got a bit messed up there wraith, but point still clear.


We'll have to agree to disagree.  He's not sending because of the value is a very salient rebuttal to the he's not sending because of some other reason.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,249
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #935 on: November 18, 2017, 11:27 AM »
Heh! Seems we have a lot of disagreements on many things.

For Bitcoin Cash, I see it as just another altcoin. The 8MB blocks solve nothing. Further, code screw-ups in it have shown that the bcash team isn't up to the same level as the Bitcoin Core team.

For SegWit2x, some people tried to pull it off. Guess what? It died immediately due to show-stopping bugs. It never got off the ground. Again, solid code review is important. (It had multiple bugs, including an 'off-by-1' bug.)

So, complaints about the Bitcoin Core team being slow are very much unfounded.

One of the greatest allies of Bitcoin is Litecoin (and others too). The Litecoin team has deployed code ahead of Bitcoin in order to provide a production environment testing ground. SegWit was in Litecoin first.

Litecoin is currently proving atomic swaps (not to be confused with atomic transactions). This is a big deal.

https://www.cryptoco...at-are-atomic-swaps/

If recent news is anything to go by, the future of atomic cross-chain trading looks bright. Creator of Litecoin, Charlie Lee, successfully completed atomic swaps using Litecoin in exchange for Bitcoin, Vertcoin and Decred.

As for fees, yes, this is an issue, but give it a bit of time and that will disappear. MimbleWimble/Grin and off-chain scaling techniques will alleviate mempool bloat.

Also, keep in mind that Bitcoin has been under attack for years now, with everything from technical attacks to nation state attacks and political attacks. And it's survived all of them. Bitcoin is highly resilient. And that's in part due to the good judgement of the Bitcoin Core team.

On the topic of Ethereum...

And I'm also not sure what any variant of Bitcoin offers these days over other cryptos that haven't had development stalled for the past 2 years. I think Dash has integrated some cool features (like InstantSend, PrivateSend, and their treasury to help fund continued development). I think Ethereum is pretty interesting because you can run programs on the blockchain.


Ethereum is constantly having to have hard forks due to serious bugs.

As a currency, Bitcoin is far superior to Ethereum because it's stable. The problem is in part due to Ethereum being Turing complete, and Bitcoin being not Turing complete. This is important. The design decision to be not Turning complete was a good one, as Ethereum has shown.

That being said, Ethereum is superior to Bitcoin as a development platform. They do different things.

One to watch is NEO.

https://www.bittrex....x?MarketName=BTC-NEO

Monday should see a pop there. Not sure though. I don't have time to dig too deep. Still mulling over whether to throw some at it and see what happens.



Bitcoin has a problem when one its most ardent supporters you know says things like this:

Quote from: Renegade on November 11, 2017, 01:21 AM
I don't send my friends BTC. I send fiat.


That was taken horribly out of context.

I don't send my friends BTC. I send fiat. Because it's less valuable. I HODL.

In other words, he sends fiat because fiat won't go up in value.  Bitcoin will.  BTW, HODL means to hold, as many people do with stocks.

Yep. I like my friends, but... Nope. Keeping my BTC. They can buy BTC if they want. If I have fiat, I'll settle in fiat. Good money drives out bad. And fiat right now is the ultimate s**tcoin.


Regarding Rick Falkvinge, he's being a dishonest shill. (Yes - he's in on the bcash nonsense.) The fee issue will be resolved, but big blocks aren't the answer -- they only create further problems. If he wants free transactions, there are plenty of coins out there. This isn't about free transactions in the least.

https://cointelegrap...o-bitcoin-block-size

It seems that late in 2010, Satoshi realized there had to be a maximum block size, otherwise some miners might produce bigger blocks than other miners were willing to accept, and the chain could split. Therefore, Satoshi inserted a 1 MB limit into the code.

Rick, Roger, Jihan, and the rest of them are behaving like petulant children. Their temper tantrums over scaling aren't helping anyone. The issue is being addressed, but it's being addressed in a responsible way that takes time.

One only needs to look at the bcash and SegWit2x code failures to see just how idiotic these children have become. The bugs seen there are catastrophic. Their rush to address scaling is reckless at best.





Regarding wire transfers, I had to send money to someone again last night. It cost me less than 10% what a bank wire transfer would cost, and it was there immediately instead of taking 3-5 business days.

And, if I really need faster or cheaper payments, I can always use Monero or Dash or whatever.

But this incessant whining about Bitcoin not being X or Y or Z is silly. Bitcoin is conservative, stable, and resilient. No other coin has been attacked as viciously as Bitcoin. And that probably plays into why Bitcoin development is so cautious.

It's like people complaining that their hammers don't have Philips and Robertson screwdriver heads on them. Well... duh! That's because those tools do different things. Pick the right tool for the job. Bitching about the wrong tool not being the right tool is just silly.









Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,890
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #936 on: November 18, 2017, 01:02 PM »
quotes got a bit messed up there wraith, but point still clear.


We'll have to agree to disagree.  He's not sending because of the value is a very salient rebuttal to the he's not sending because of some other reason.
A misunderstanding there: the quote tags got mixed up in your post.
like you I don't like things to be misqouted, nor taken out of context.
Was also saying that I nevertheless found his previous post convincing.

Now to read what Ren has to say about it all :-)
Tom

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,249
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #937 on: November 18, 2017, 11:46 PM »
I just sent a transaction through at the maximum priority level for $4 CAD. Yes, that's a fair amount to spend, but it will arrive sooner than a wire transfer, for less, and a normal transfer of any amount in Canada cost $1.50 anyways.

So, I paid $2.50 over what an insecure, shitty, primitive system based on email would cost me. (Interac in Canada is a minimum of $1.50 per transfer.)

And guess what? I regularly have to wait HOURS for direct transfers here in Canada.

Canada is worse than the third world (I've lived there and banked there and have bank accounts there). Canada is the asshole of the banking world. It sucks. More than I can possibly say.

How much do most people spend in banking fees for their transactions? $4 a month is normal here in Canada for a small number of transactions.

I still hate paying fees, but I still pay less than with the traditional banking system when I use Bitcoin.




Consider this... When you go out for dinner with your family and spent $100, $2.50 of that is transaction fees for credit cards.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,402
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #938 on: November 20, 2017, 01:21 PM »
Thought this might be interesting to some: Successful completion of the first off-chain atomic swap.


Hay, does anybody know how the hell you're supposed to get the BCH from the BTC fork back in August?? I had some coin in an old Multibit wallet back then, but I gots no clue on how to jump the fork (for lack of a better/correct term) with it..

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,249
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #939 on: November 20, 2017, 05:02 PM »
Hay, does anybody know how the hell you're supposed to get the BCH from the BTC fork back in August?? I had some coin in an old Multibit wallet back then, but I gots no clue on how to jump the fork (for lack of a better/correct term) with it..

It's pretty easy. However, make sure that you are very careful with your private keys, as if anyone sees them, all your coins are GONE.

This is the SHORT version. I recommend doing a search to find out how to do the steps you're unsure of.

1. Find which addresses have coins in your Bitcoin wallet.
2. Export the private keys for those addresses.
3. Transfer all your coins from your Bitcoin wallet to a new address (this is a paranoia step that should be followed - it aims to prevent a replay attack).
4. In your new bcash wallet, import your private keys and you'll see the coins appear in your wallet.

Thought this might be interesting to some: Successful completion of the first off-chain atomic swap.

This is a much bigger deal than I think most people realise.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,249
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #940 on: November 20, 2017, 05:55 PM »
I should also mention that for some wallets, if you upgrade them, you can automatically get your bcash.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,402
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Reply #941 on: Today at 06:12 AM »
However, make sure that you are very careful with your private keys, as if anyone sees them, all your coins are GONE

In what context are we using "see"? IRL Shoulder Surfing/Trojan upload, or potential exposure on the chain during the transaction?


Hay, did I mention it's great to see you back? :D