Bitcoin - a decentralised digital currency

[MikeMelga 7,255]

On 4/15/2021, 2:56:48, MadManEarle said:

The most valuable things about Bitcoin are its decentralization and trustless verification. Almost none (if any at all) other cryptos have these qualities. The security of its network is based on how much hash power it has, and no other network even comes close to the size of Bitcoin's.

Aren't you outdated? Now bitconns are advocating rarity as its most valuable thing.

BTW, what everyday problem are you trying to solve with decentralization? Tell me how decentralization can improve my everyday life.

[MadManEarle 35]

12 hours ago, Goodbye_BlueSky said:

" decentralization and trustless verification."
I am not an expert. But I thought the whole thing about Blockchain is "decentralization and trustless verification". So why no other cryptos other than Bitcoin has those qualities ? Coud you pls explain a bit ?

Blockchain by itself is just a transaction ledger that shows the entire history of the chain. Nothing about the blockchain itself is decentralized or trustless, necessarily. It is really just a fancy spreadsheet.

 

But the way that Bitcoin distributes the confirmation of the transactions through every person who runs a full node, it is differentiated from almost all other cryptocurrencies. For instance, to run a full Ethereum node requires storage and computing power that is not readily available to a normal person. The Ripple XRP chain is not available for the general public to run at all, as far as I know.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

8 minutes ago, MadManEarle said:

Blockchain by itself is just a transaction ledger that shows the entire history of the chain.

 

Out of curiosity, is this even remotely maintaineable if Bitcoin were to become an everyday currency? We would be probably talking hundreds of terabytes per year aggregating on a single "file". This does not sound good.

Edit. Here is a long explanation:

https://hackernoon.com/if-we-lived-in-a-bitcoin-future-how-big-would-the-blockchain-have-to-be-bd07b282416f

 

So not only Bitcoin fucks up the environment, it would demand increadbly amount of bandwidth, it would require increasingly more expensive computers (which also fuck up the environment, and all before the concerns about safety, illegal activities and so on... totally sane...

[MadManEarle 35]

5 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Out of curiosity, is this even remotely maintaineable if Bitcoin were to become an everyday currency? We would be probably talking hundreds of terabytes per year aggregating on a single "file". This does not sound good.

This is just false.

 

The current size of the entire BTC chain is 341GB, for 12 years of history. It is currently growing linearly, and at a rate that is well below the rate of storage technology. This is not an issue for viability as a currency, especially since not every wallet needs to be a node. There are also options to prune the node as it is verified, which drastically reduces the storage requirements. I have multiple configurations of nodes running on Raspberry Pi 3B boards with storage ranging from 32GB to 300GB. None of them have any problems, and I will never have to add more storage to them, unless I choose to run an unpruned node in the future.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

@MadManEarle Read the article, for wide acceptance the numbers would scale hugely.

[MadManEarle 35]

@MikeMelga No, they wouldn't. It is impossible for the storage to consume more than 1MB per block, which happens on average every 10 minutes. This is a maximum of 51GB per year.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

27 minutes ago, MadManEarle said:

@MikeMelga No, they wouldn't. It is impossible for the storage to consume more than 1MB per block, which happens on average every 10 minutes. This is a maximum of 51GB per year.

So you are admitting it can't scale up? It's useless?

[MadManEarle 35]

1 minute ago, MikeMelga said:

So you are admitting it can't scale up? It's useless?

 

No, far from useless. Please learn about how transaction settlements occur, and the use cases for settlement layers (for instance, Lightning). These scale infinitely.

 

You are just picking fights with no reason. Let me know when (if) you want to actually discuss the points of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

Does lightning network prevent blockchain size increase? Where are the transactions recorded?

[Goodbye_BlueSky 51]

1 hour ago, MadManEarle said:

This is just false.

 

The current size of the entire BTC chain is 341GB, for 12 years of history. It is currently growing linearly, and at a rate that is well below the rate of storage technology. This is not an issue for viability as a currency, especially since not every wallet needs to be a node. There are also options to prune the node as it is verified, which drastically reduces the storage requirements. I have multiple configurations of nodes running on Raspberry Pi 3B boards with storage ranging from 32GB to 300GB. None of them have any problems, and I will never have to add more storage to them, unless I choose to run an unpruned node in the future.

I read today from a report from Bank of America that Bitcoin can do around 14.000 Transactions per hour, whereas Visa can do 236 Million Transactions. Is it true ?
If so, how can we expect 2 Billion people pays everyday in Bitcoin at Aldis,Lidls, and Walmarts? And how much will it cost for me when I pay 20$ in Walmart with BTC?

[MadManEarle 35]

Just now, Goodbye_BlueSky said:

I read today from a report from Bank of America that Bitcoin can do around 14.000 Transactions per hour, whereas Visa can do 236 Million Transactions. Is it true ?
f so, how can we expect 2 Billion people pays everyday in Bitcoin at Aldis,Lidls, and Walmarts? And how much will it cost for me when I pay 20$ in Walmart with BTC?

 

The difference is in the settlement layer. Think of an "on-chain" transaction as a bank-to-bank transfer. Right now, this costs roughly 6 sat/b (0.00000006 BTC/byte), and is limited to 1MB of transactions every 10 minutes. If you aren't careful with setting your fee limits and consolidating your balances, then you can end up paying $100+ per transaction. This is what everyone talks about when they claim that Bitcoin is too expensive and limited.

 

If a "layer 2 solution" is used instead, like Lightning, then transactions are conducted "off-chain", and then later broadcast to the blockchain whenever desired. The cost for this is virtually free, and still requires no trusted party. The number of transactions allowed by this method is in the range of millions per second, but I don't know exactly how many.

 

So yes, if you want to operate as a bank for every transaction, then it will be slow and expensive. But using other technologies layered on top of Bitcoin will make it basically instant and free, like a credit/debit card transaction. Card transactions also cost about 3% to process, but that cost is hidden in the price of the item, since the merchant pays for it.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

17 minutes ago, MadManEarle said:

If a "layer 2 solution" is used instead, like Lightning, then transactions are conducted "off-chain", and then later broadcast to the blockchain whenever desired. The cost for this is virtually free, and still requires no trusted party. The number of transactions allowed by this method is in the range of millions per second, but I don't know exactly how many.

Where are the transactions recorded?

[Krieg 14,941]

It is painful to see an engineer fail so much at something just because of hate on the product.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

24 minutes ago, Krieg said:

It is painful to see an engineer fail so much at something just because of hate on the product.

Again, where are the transactions recorded? 3rd time I ask, no answer. A good engineer asks the hard questions. And a good engineer has a good gut feeling for bullshit solutions.

[Krieg 14,941]

1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

Again, where are the transactions recorded? 3rd time I ask, no answer. A good engineer asks the hard questions. And a good engineer has a good gut feeling for bullshit solutions.

 

Those are the hard questions?  It was even answered here at last twice in the recent messages.  The problem is you can't grasp the basic concepts and you just hate it.   You keep thinking in traditional bank accounts and criptos are not like that.   The VALIDATION of the transaction is stored in the blockchain, where else? But you do not have to keep all the transactions forever, the data can be pruned any time once you have reached whatever amount of validation replications both parties doing the transaction consider enough.

 

Another thing you do not get is you think BTC is the only one, or the only way of doing things.   Yes, you are right, BTC couldn't scale to take all the transactions of the world, mostly because of the Block Size issue, I think one day I wasted time here trying to explain that to you and if flew over your head.   BTC is the dinosaur of the criptos.  If you need scalability there are other criptos that can scale much better.

 

BTW. Lightning is suppose to bring speed and scalability to BTC, but at the same time is bringing "safety" which is probably against the original idea and it will turn BTC into something more similar to a bank account, maybe you will then like it.

 

Using an analogy, you are like an EV hater spreading FUD. 

[MikeMelga 7,255]

4 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

Those are the hard questions?  It was even answered here at last twice in the recent messages.  The problem is you can't grasp the basic concepts and you just hate it.   You keep thinking in traditional bank accounts and criptos are not like that.   The VALIDATION of the transaction is stored in the blockchain, where else?

 

Ahah! Then the blockchain increases with each transaction, therefore this goes against what @MadManEarle said. This creates the issue of blockchain growing hugely.

 

4 minutes ago, Krieg said:

But you do not have to keep all the transactions forever, the data can be pruned any time once you have reached whatever amount of validation replications both parties doing the transaction consider enough.

Legally, depending on the country, you need to keep it for decades. Prunning won't help, at least a brute prunning.

 

4 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

Another thing you do not get is you think BTC is the only one, or the only way of doing things.   Yes, you are right, BTC couldn't scale to take all the transactions of the world, mostly because of the Block Size issue, I think one day I wasted time here trying to explain that to you and if flew over your head.   BTC is the dinosaur of the criptos.  If you need scalability there are other criptos that can scale much better.

Ah! Here is my point! You say one thing, @MadManEarle says the opposite. And if Bitcoin can't scale up, then why use it?

 

4 minutes ago, Krieg said:

BTW. Lightning is suppose to bring speed and scalability to BTC, but at the same time is bringing "safety" which is probably against the original idea and it will turn BTC into something more similar to a bank account, maybe you will then like it.

Yes, I agree there. At some point only big corporations will afford to process it, therefore ending the liberal pipedream.

 

4 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Using an analogy, you are like an EV hater spreading FUD. 

I prefer to see myself as a hydrogen cars hater, as I am an engineer and I see no future on that.

[Krieg 14,941]

9 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Ahah! Then the blockchain increases with each transaction, therefore this goes against what @MadManEarle said. This creates the issue of blockchain growing hugely.

 

He told you about the Blockchain growing and he told you about pruning.  You not grasping what people tell you is another thing.

 

Quote

 

Legally, depending on the country, you need to keep it for decades. Prunning won't help, at least a brute prunning.

 

The Blockchain is not a bank.   So it does not fulfil the requirements to be a bank.   You didn't even pay attention. 

 

If I pay you something in cash are you and I legally required to keep a receipt for 10 years?

 

Quote

Ah! Here is my point! You say one thing, @MadManEarle says the opposite. And if Bitcoin can't scale up, then why use it?

 

Because no one is planing to replace all transactions in the world with BTC, that idea only exist in your obtuse mind.  Some people use BTC because they see a future there.  Some people use it purely for speculation and hoping to get rich fast.

 

Quote

 

Yes, I agree there. At some point only big corporations will afford to process it, therefore ending the liberal pipedream.

 

Maybe, maybe not.  I am not a fan of lightning.   I prefer that things follow a natural path and BTC dies someday leaving the path paved for other criptos to take its place.

 

Quote

I prefer to see myself as a hydrogen cars hater, as I am an engineer and I see no future on that.

 

Even a simple analogy flew over you head.   Incredible.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

19 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

He told you about the Blockchain growing and he told you about pruning.  You not grasping what people tell you is another thing.

He told me there is no blockchain size scalability.

Of course you won't agree with him because you don't see Bitcoin scaling up. But you provided me with the information to discredit his information that there is no blockchain size scalability problem.

 

Quote

If I pay you something in cash are you and I legally required to keep a receipt for 10 years?

If one of the parties is a company, YES!

For private individuals, in some situations yes, but usually not up to 10 years.

[theGman 3,516]

Krieg is right. The analogy of an EV hater using FUD. Your arguments here are the same as SP saying that EV's are pointless because he can't drive from here to Timbuktu on a single charge. An EV is not right for him right now. BTC is not right for you right now.

 

I am also very sceptical of Bitcoin but the fact is that people are using it, and have been using it to make transactions for many years now. We can poke holes, sure. Maybe it will collapse in the future. But despite whatever you and I think, the train just keeps on moving.

[MikeMelga 7,255]

2 minutes ago, theGman said:

Krieg is right. The analogy of an EV hater using FUD. Your arguments here are the same as SP saying that EV's are pointless because he can't drive from here to Timbuktu on a single charge. An EV is not right for him right now. BTC is not right for you right now.

 

I'm trying really hard to find a use for it! I can't find a single (good) use case which is not covered by current system. The only ones I find are related with fraud, tax evasion or some libertarian pipe dream, like inflation hedging.

This is a pure product management analysis.

Then, if I dive into the technical details, all crumbles. Sure, you can solve most of them in a few years. But as Krieg said, it won't be Bitcoin to solve them. So why bet on it??