Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
Behemoth said:
That's a very commonly held fallacy. But the blockchain can't stand alone from Bitcoin. Here's why:
The blockchain is simply a set of data blocks that are each linked with hashes to refer one to the next (a hash in computer science is the collapse of a large set of data into a unique small set of characters that can be used to represent it). A blockchain is not innovative. It's a very inefficient way to structure data. You wouldn't want to use this kind of database unless you really had to.
But if you add this chaining to a method that removes the need to trust others, you head towards something very innovative indeed. The reason a blockchain is used in Bitcoin is to achieve decentralisation. It's at the heart of being able to remove trust. Without a need for decentralisation, there is simply no point in having a blockchain. You are far better off using a replicated database. Way cheaper, faster, more efficient.
Back to the trust issue. You can remove trust if you can agree on rules about how to validate transactions (and thus the blocks) in situations where people are potentially at odds with each other. Exchanging money is exactly this kind of potentially adversarial situation. In Bitcoin, these consensus rules get implemented by a competition held between those helping to validate the transactions. That competition is proof of work. This kind of competition for proof prevents any chance of double spending (which, put simply, is cheating by copy-pasting the same Bitcoin to spend it in two or more places at once).
All this together is the innovation. Blockchain is not the standard. It is Bitcoin that is the standard. You need the intrinsic, valuable asset to make it all hang together. A blockchain alone is just a crappy, slow & expensive database.
Blockchain is a technological approach to trustThe blockchain is simply a set of data blocks that are each linked with hashes to refer one to the next (a hash in computer science is the collapse of a large set of data into a unique small set of characters that can be used to represent it). A blockchain is not innovative. It's a very inefficient way to structure data. You wouldn't want to use this kind of database unless you really had to.
But if you add this chaining to a method that removes the need to trust others, you head towards something very innovative indeed. The reason a blockchain is used in Bitcoin is to achieve decentralisation. It's at the heart of being able to remove trust. Without a need for decentralisation, there is simply no point in having a blockchain. You are far better off using a replicated database. Way cheaper, faster, more efficient.
Back to the trust issue. You can remove trust if you can agree on rules about how to validate transactions (and thus the blocks) in situations where people are potentially at odds with each other. Exchanging money is exactly this kind of potentially adversarial situation. In Bitcoin, these consensus rules get implemented by a competition held between those helping to validate the transactions. That competition is proof of work. This kind of competition for proof prevents any chance of double spending (which, put simply, is cheating by copy-pasting the same Bitcoin to spend it in two or more places at once).
All this together is the innovation. Blockchain is not the standard. It is Bitcoin that is the standard. You need the intrinsic, valuable asset to make it all hang together. A blockchain alone is just a crappy, slow & expensive database.
Bitcoin is a currency
The two are totally different things.
Blockchain can be used for other things and is.
The ownership of a bitcoin does not need to be totally held in a blockchain, for instance a wallet could hold bitcoins for a number of people and the ownership of individual coins within the wallet (the individual balances) could be managed by the wallet owner.
Heres Johnny said:
Blockchain is a technological approach to trust
Bitcoin is a currency
The two are totally different things.
Blockchain can be used for other things and is.
The ownership of a bitcoin does not need to be totally held in a blockchain, for instance a wallet could hold bitcoins for a number of people and the ownership of individual coins within the wallet (the individual balances) could be managed by the wallet owner.
A blockchain is not trustless until it is decentralised. In order to decentralise without trust, you need a token, you need high value on that token (otherwise trust can be easily cheated) and you need a method to get consensus between potential adversaries. With trust as an element, the token and the blockchain are irrevocably interconnected. They are not totally different things. Bitcoin is a currency
The two are totally different things.
Blockchain can be used for other things and is.
The ownership of a bitcoin does not need to be totally held in a blockchain, for instance a wallet could hold bitcoins for a number of people and the ownership of individual coins within the wallet (the individual balances) could be managed by the wallet owner.
If trust doesn't matter, a blockchain without a token can work but it is just a crap database. Almost every business and organisation on the planet would be far better off using a normal distributed database.
Bitcoin is not technically owned in a wallet. The coins exist on the blockchain. It is private keys that are owned & those keys unlock a section of the blockchain, thus providing proof of ownership. If a wallet holds keys for a number of people, ownership of that wallet can certainly be centralised (custodial service) or run a multisig (where multiple holders have access but only if multiple people sign together with their own unique private key).
Condi said:
Most of the evidence on things like energy usage, transaction speed and cost, volatility, number of payments made, regulatory interest etc (ie hard facts) suggest it isnt, and wont work as a currency.
It's an emerging innovation and these shortcomings are totally expected. Your requirement for hard facts seems to be really about wanting these things in place from the outset. You place yourself in a Catch 22 with that position. It's a little bit like complaining there is nobody to call to when you've just invented the telephone.For me, the evidence shows Bitcoin has a high possibility of success (very high for store of value & transfer of wealth). If the evidence presented doesn't convince you, then you'll just have to steer well clear and come back later when infrastructure has grown and volatility has plateaued. Or enjoy your schadenfreude if it all fails
I don't really understand why you all have such a negative view of bitcoin. You haven't even started to gain an understanding of it, all you do is apply today's financial world to bitcoin and try to make it fit.
That is not how it will work.
That's like when the first internet search engines decided to create human edited directories and indexes instead of algorithms to query the web. It's a new world, new thinking needed.
The price of bitcoin has been its biggest problem. It went so high that the risks of hacks, lost coins, user error and so on became too great for fledgling companies to bear. Who cares if you lose 1000 bitcoins worth £10 each? Nobody. Who cares if you lose 1000 bitcoins worth $20,000 each? Everybody.
Anyway, lots of amazing stuff is still happening and if you can drop your defences and open your minds you might surprise yourselves and learn something new.
Google this for starters: 00000000000000000021e800c1e8df51b22c1588e5a624bea17e9faa34b2dc4a
That is not how it will work.
That's like when the first internet search engines decided to create human edited directories and indexes instead of algorithms to query the web. It's a new world, new thinking needed.
The price of bitcoin has been its biggest problem. It went so high that the risks of hacks, lost coins, user error and so on became too great for fledgling companies to bear. Who cares if you lose 1000 bitcoins worth £10 each? Nobody. Who cares if you lose 1000 bitcoins worth $20,000 each? Everybody.
Anyway, lots of amazing stuff is still happening and if you can drop your defences and open your minds you might surprise yourselves and learn something new.
Google this for starters: 00000000000000000021e800c1e8df51b22c1588e5a624bea17e9faa34b2dc4a
dimots said:
I don't really understand why you all have such a negative view of bitcoin. You haven't even started to gain an understanding of it, all you do is apply today's financial world to bitcoin and try to make it fit.
Maybe if you had some sort of understanding of economics. There are loads of issues with bitcoin.dimots said:
The price of bitcoin has been its biggest problem. It went so high that the risks of hacks, lost coins, user error and so on became too great for fledgling companies to bear. Who cares if you lose 1000 bitcoins worth £10 each? Nobody. Who cares if you lose 1000 bitcoins worth $20,000 each? Everybody.
Really? Bitcoiners go on and on about how safe and reliable the system is but you say that smallish losses are OK?dimots said:
Anyway, lots of amazing stuff is still happening and if you can drop your defences and open your minds you might surprise yourselves and learn something new.
Google this for starters: 00000000000000000021e800c1e8df51b22c1588e5a624bea17e9faa34b2dc4a
Cut down on the drugs mate.Google this for starters: 00000000000000000021e800c1e8df51b22c1588e5a624bea17e9faa34b2dc4a
Thesprucegoose said:
the volatility is why it will people are put off by it, and mass adoption. Too many carpetbaggers involved.
Exactly, the market is manipulated by the few to make money from the majority. Add in the lack of any regulation and you are just asking to have your money taken.Not that it matters though as it is all about the technology and fiat is worthless.
coyft said:
I'm completely open minded about it, in fact I came here trying to find out what use it could be put to.
However so far, no-one has been able to come up with anything.
Yesterday, $53 million was moved in one transaction on the Bitcoin network. The fee was about $5. I call that useful & even if you personally don't need to do that today, this year or ever, you really can't deny Bitcoin's utility for transfer of wealth.However so far, no-one has been able to come up with anything.
https://blockchain.info/tx/afe14e43874aa2500d69cfa...
Bitcoin as a medium for consumer exchange comes later. So does reduction in volatility against other currencies. Bitcoin is already proving to be the least volatile of all cryptocurrencies, which tells you something about the path it is taking.
Behemoth said:
Yesterday, $53 million was moved in one transaction on the Bitcoin network. The fee was about $5. I call that useful & even if you personally don't need to do that today, this year or ever, you really can't deny Bitcoin's utility for transfer of wealth.
https://blockchain.info/tx/afe14e43874aa2500d69cfa...
Bitcoin as a medium for consumer exchange comes later. So does reduction in volatility against other currencies. Bitcoin is already proving to be the least volatile of all cryptocurrencies, which tells you something about the path it is taking.
But surely if they had moved it in December it would have been worth $150 million?https://blockchain.info/tx/afe14e43874aa2500d69cfa...
Bitcoin as a medium for consumer exchange comes later. So does reduction in volatility against other currencies. Bitcoin is already proving to be the least volatile of all cryptocurrencies, which tells you something about the path it is taking.
When BTC falls from $20k in December to $6k today and is called the least volatile that tells you everything you need to know.
btc fees are low as less people are using them, as soon as txs increase fees go up and the pattern repeats.
I think this mempool size paints an interesting picture, lots of txs and massive bottleneck at news like this.
I think this mempool size paints an interesting picture, lots of txs and massive bottleneck at news like this.
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Friday 22 June 15:09
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Friday 22 June 15:14
Behemoth said:
Joey Deacon said:
But surely if they had moved it in December it would have been worth $150 million?
If they moved it in December 2016 it would've been worth about $600k. It was moved from one wallet to another, not into & out of fiat.I’ve no idea what it would cost to send £53m to another account - £25 maybe?
Thesprucegoose said:
btc fees are low as less people are using them, as soon as txs increase fees go up and the pattern repeats.
|https://thumbsnap.com/EsPGDSoV[/url]
These June spikes were to do with Bithumb panicking over their hack. They didn't batch transactions & paid a high price. https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-transaction-fees-s...|https://thumbsnap.com/EsPGDSoV[/url]If the relative value of a coin goes up, so does the relative cost of transacting on it. That's why at higher relative values, second layer solutions like Lightning Network are needed for low value cash payments.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff