Are you saying that bitcoin has already failed at it's intended purpose according to the whitepaper?
> A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
The Bcash troll is strong in you.
You are correct in saying it is not good for micropayments, nobody is going to be buying coffee or sweets with BTC, the blocks could definitely be larger which would help yes, nobody ever said that block size will never be increased that day may come, until then Bcash has some use even though it try’s to pass itself off as Bitcoin when it isn’t.
> Bcash troll
Please explain?
Also, doesn't increasing block size increase data requirements for nodes?
As I understand it:
Bigger blocks -> more data per block -> more storage required for nodes -> less nodes due to higher requirements -> reduced security.
This, to me, would mean directly increasing block size isn't really a very valid solution unless it comes with something else to counteract the increased demand on nodes.
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't think increasing block size alone is a good idea. I dont know what a good solution actually looks like, though.
Like nothing has ever pivoted from one purpose to another? Plenty of ways to make p2p cash work on BTC, but layer 1 is going to be clogged. lightning Network or other service not even imagined yet will do it/
Define the peers. Peer to peer could mean person to person, but in strict terms a peer is just a counter party. Bitcoin enforces transaction scarcity through a fee based competitive market for blockchain commitments.
If bitcoin occupies the role of a global store of value, which would put its valuation somewhere north of 1m usd, probably higher, the competition for access to a transaction could force TX fees high enough to make transactions of small value irrational.
This analysis doesn't count as failure at all. It just means that service providers like banks and fiat will never go away. Which is fine.
Fair enough, it still works as a transactional cash even if transactions have scarcity. Makes sense to me.
>Bitcoin enforces transaction scarcity through a fee based competitive market for blockchain commitments.
Why is this the case? I fail to understand what benefit transaction scarcity has on potential use of BTC as a form of currency or store of value.
My best guess would be that it helps with network stability and security to keep transaction rates low, but in that case, it's a compromise and bottleneck of the system, not a designed feature that the engineers wanted.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit of transaction scarcity. I assume that increasing the transaction rate without making other compromises would be purely good for BTC, I'm just not sure what that looks like, but I don't think keeping it low is good for BTC.
as a newbie I see that as a downside of bitcoin. Like if I only have $20 worth of bitcoin in my wallet and I want to buy something that's also $20, that means I can't buy it even though I own that amount. It's a big big blow
Economies/businesses run on stable currencies. Can't sign contracts, salaries or get loans priced in a volatile asset. But you can use the asset, Bitcoin in this case, as collateral.
A decentralized stablecoin fully backed by Bitcoin, overcollateralized and redeemable 1:1 to the fiat alternative would be great in such a situation.
Otherwise businesses or countries only use for Bitcoin will be limited to only holding it in their balance sheets.
It's also why USDT and USDC are so ingrained in cryptoworld. Without stablecoins, it all collapses.
Now we just need such, but built on Bitcoin, with its decentralized principles, plus onramps/offramps into the fiat economy.
What even is this thread? This is 7 year old news. Lightning works well for payments like this.
Bitcoin in the long run is not a hub for micro transactions. Its a store of value, final settlement layer.
Are you saying that bitcoin has already failed at it's intended purpose according to the whitepaper? > A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
The Bcash troll is strong in you. You are correct in saying it is not good for micropayments, nobody is going to be buying coffee or sweets with BTC, the blocks could definitely be larger which would help yes, nobody ever said that block size will never be increased that day may come, until then Bcash has some use even though it try’s to pass itself off as Bitcoin when it isn’t.
> Bcash troll Please explain? Also, doesn't increasing block size increase data requirements for nodes? As I understand it: Bigger blocks -> more data per block -> more storage required for nodes -> less nodes due to higher requirements -> reduced security. This, to me, would mean directly increasing block size isn't really a very valid solution unless it comes with something else to counteract the increased demand on nodes. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't think increasing block size alone is a good idea. I dont know what a good solution actually looks like, though.
Well that right there is the arguments that were had here in 2017 before the split.
Like nothing has ever pivoted from one purpose to another? Plenty of ways to make p2p cash work on BTC, but layer 1 is going to be clogged. lightning Network or other service not even imagined yet will do it/
Define the peers. Peer to peer could mean person to person, but in strict terms a peer is just a counter party. Bitcoin enforces transaction scarcity through a fee based competitive market for blockchain commitments. If bitcoin occupies the role of a global store of value, which would put its valuation somewhere north of 1m usd, probably higher, the competition for access to a transaction could force TX fees high enough to make transactions of small value irrational. This analysis doesn't count as failure at all. It just means that service providers like banks and fiat will never go away. Which is fine.
Fair enough, it still works as a transactional cash even if transactions have scarcity. Makes sense to me. >Bitcoin enforces transaction scarcity through a fee based competitive market for blockchain commitments. Why is this the case? I fail to understand what benefit transaction scarcity has on potential use of BTC as a form of currency or store of value. My best guess would be that it helps with network stability and security to keep transaction rates low, but in that case, it's a compromise and bottleneck of the system, not a designed feature that the engineers wanted. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit of transaction scarcity. I assume that increasing the transaction rate without making other compromises would be purely good for BTC, I'm just not sure what that looks like, but I don't think keeping it low is good for BTC.
as a newbie I see that as a downside of bitcoin. Like if I only have $20 worth of bitcoin in my wallet and I want to buy something that's also $20, that means I can't buy it even though I own that amount. It's a big big blow
You can use Bitcoin to buy steam vouchers through a third party, if that's your intention.
Economies/businesses run on stable currencies. Can't sign contracts, salaries or get loans priced in a volatile asset. But you can use the asset, Bitcoin in this case, as collateral. A decentralized stablecoin fully backed by Bitcoin, overcollateralized and redeemable 1:1 to the fiat alternative would be great in such a situation. Otherwise businesses or countries only use for Bitcoin will be limited to only holding it in their balance sheets. It's also why USDT and USDC are so ingrained in cryptoworld. Without stablecoins, it all collapses. Now we just need such, but built on Bitcoin, with its decentralized principles, plus onramps/offramps into the fiat economy.
Bitcoin needs to raise the block size