I think the transactions per second limit is often quoted but not as significant as made out.
Bitcoin has now such a large footprint that it's secure and fairly stable. That's the real story.
I find a lot of posts here about people complaining how their transactions took upto a day to confirm, and I think as user adoption and transactions increase, we might hit a bottle-neck. The transactions per second may not be significant now, but it will be then!
I am not so sure that Bitcoin will be the solution as a payment method of choice.
When you talk about Visa and Matercard your talking about day to day spending.
It could be Monero or Dash or one of the other payment currencies that will be used for this space.
Bitcoin is not high frequency or high volume and may be more used as a store of value or bank account type currency. When you compare it to gold for example you cant make a lot of transactions per second with that but its still used as store of value. Its stable and safe.
Maybe bitcoins transactions will reduce over time but be used for more specific things such as interbank transactions and long term store of value?
BTC should (and hopefully) will fix itself over time given the high amount of capital. But here's a little something - there are too many BTC salesmen not really telling it as it is when promoting to others. Well, maybe that has been the way with everything that sells well :p
I am optimistic as to the future of BTC, but cannot agree more with your observation regarding its "hardsell". We could maybe learn a lesson and see that we (steem) do not repeat that!
Yes I had read that post by @dantheman, and he is on the same page with the article as to control of the coin. But this article had me thinking about a future of crypto's in general, as Bitcoin is the flagship of the block-chains, and maybe we could/should learn from its shortcomings.
There's another article floating around talking about how the Chinese government is getting a cut of the mining farms and they would likely not want to upset a good thing they have going.
It's true that a market cap of $16bn ($17 according to coinmarketcap.com) is relatively small. Doesn't the freedom to exchange between literally hundreds of other cryptocurrencies make any attempt to dominate a single currency and prevent technical changes inconsequential and even detrimental to the interests of the majority shareholders? If people no longer support Bitcoin or disagree with the decisions for technical change, or lack of, they can simply exchange it for another asset.
Jamie then references a theregister.co.uk article, stating a cause for the price boom. Attributing a single cause to a price boom, like the recent bitcoin move is what Taleb would say is part of the narrative fallacy. As pointed out in Chapter 6 of The Black Swan, "The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them, or, equivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship, upon them . . . Where this propensity can go wrong is when it increases our impression of understanding." To claim a single cause for the move is to ignore scientific evidence for chaos in the markets. Chaos, meaning new information, randomness, and turbulence, void of a singular cause. Also from chapter 6, "Whenever there is a market move, the news media feel obligated to give the 'reason.' Half an hour later, they have to issue a new headline." Am I missing something? I am by no means an expert, but it reads like fluff to me.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 04. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $4.50 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
I think the transactions per second limit is often quoted but not as significant as made out.
Bitcoin has now such a large footprint that it's secure and fairly stable. That's the real story.
Innovators will find a way to make transactions happen when they are needed at scale such as the Bitcache solution which I give a some background to here https://steemit.com/beyondbitcoin/@eroche/megaupload-2-0-and-bitcache
I find a lot of posts here about people complaining how their transactions took upto a day to confirm, and I think as user adoption and transactions increase, we might hit a bottle-neck. The transactions per second may not be significant now, but it will be then!
I am not so sure that Bitcoin will be the solution as a payment method of choice.
When you talk about Visa and Matercard your talking about day to day spending.
It could be Monero or Dash or one of the other payment currencies that will be used for this space.
Bitcoin is not high frequency or high volume and may be more used as a store of value or bank account type currency. When you compare it to gold for example you cant make a lot of transactions per second with that but its still used as store of value. Its stable and safe.
Maybe bitcoins transactions will reduce over time but be used for more specific things such as interbank transactions and long term store of value?
That perspective is a welcome one! Thanks.
Very interesting perspective.
I thought so too, when I read the article!
BTC should (and hopefully) will fix itself over time given the high amount of capital. But here's a little something - there are too many BTC salesmen not really telling it as it is when promoting to others. Well, maybe that has been the way with everything that sells well :p
I am optimistic as to the future of BTC, but cannot agree more with your observation regarding its "hardsell". We could maybe learn a lesson and see that we (steem) do not repeat that!
Dan touched on this recently as well.
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@dantheman/who-really-controls-bitcoin
Yes I had read that post by @dantheman, and he is on the same page with the article as to control of the coin. But this article had me thinking about a future of crypto's in general, as Bitcoin is the flagship of the block-chains, and maybe we could/should learn from its shortcomings.
There's another article floating around talking about how the Chinese government is getting a cut of the mining farms and they would likely not want to upset a good thing they have going.
Who knows.
It's true that a market cap of $16bn ($17 according to coinmarketcap.com) is relatively small. Doesn't the freedom to exchange between literally hundreds of other cryptocurrencies make any attempt to dominate a single currency and prevent technical changes inconsequential and even detrimental to the interests of the majority shareholders? If people no longer support Bitcoin or disagree with the decisions for technical change, or lack of, they can simply exchange it for another asset.
Jamie then references a theregister.co.uk article, stating a cause for the price boom. Attributing a single cause to a price boom, like the recent bitcoin move is what Taleb would say is part of the narrative fallacy. As pointed out in Chapter 6 of The Black Swan, "The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them, or, equivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship, upon them . . . Where this propensity can go wrong is when it increases our impression of understanding." To claim a single cause for the move is to ignore scientific evidence for chaos in the markets. Chaos, meaning new information, randomness, and turbulence, void of a singular cause. Also from chapter 6, "Whenever there is a market move, the news media feel obligated to give the 'reason.' Half an hour later, they have to issue a new headline." Am I missing something? I am by no means an expert, but it reads like fluff to me.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 04. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $4.50 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 04 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.