Bitcoin Scaling Debate
I am really getting tired of the Bitcoin scaling debate. It seems to me that one side is pushing an inefficient upgrade, while the other one is trying to fix Bitcoin and save it from the disaster pushed by the other side.
Segwit Sucks
From now on I don't support Segwit. I have done my research and it looks like Segwit is crap. Now this doesn't mean that Bitcoin Unlimited software is good either. It had a lot of bugs lately, which is unacceptable for a 30 billion $ market.
Bitcoin Core is still the more secure, better wallet. However this Segwit thing is just crap, from my perspective. Some people are saying that it has a burden of a 4mb block, while only providing roughly +20% throughput bonus.
Then you also have tons of allegations relating to the Segwit team being blatant liars, whether these allegations are true or not, it's worth investigating:
- https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6buqbb/no_sw_first_then_2m_in_12_months_simultaneously/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6buhbi/segwit_effectively_imposes_a_4x_penalty_on_any/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6btm5u/latest_segwit_trickery_involves_prominent_support/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6bqpzn/its_clear_that_neither_sw_nor_bu_is_no_longer/dhos10y/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6btl26/barry_silberts_proposal_is_just_another_bait_and/
And then Bitcointalk moderators are sometimes censoring these news, however the /bitcoin subreddit is just outright censoring it, without a shadow of a doubt.
And you also have a lot of corporate inter-mingling, influence, and derailing of the Bitcoin project into something more corporate friendly, and less user friendly.
Sides
So on one side you have Roger Ver, who is a reputable, well known and well trusted anarcho-capitalist entrepreneur and investor.
And on the other side you have a bunch of no-name coders who barely have any repuration outside Bitcoin, haven't built anything before, and basically came out of nowhere. Who are now totally influenced by the corporate agenda.
So it's a no brainer which side is better. And even the technical arguments have been debunked.
- For example did you know that Bitcoin inherently has a 32 MB block limit? Yes the protocol itself already has a 32 MB block limit. So idiots have been screaming that without a 1MB block limit you'd have 1 Terrabyte blocks filled with malicious botnet spam transaction. Whereas if they had studied the subject, they'd have realized that without the 1 MB limit, the protocol itself still enforces a 32 MB block limit
I guess the Bitcoin subreddit doesn't teach you that. So it's total propaganda environment.
Fees
Now the fees have been going out of hand lately. You have already 1$ fees, which is hardly any different than banks. And of course if the fees are so high, then the banks won't lose competitors, so it's very convenient for banks if Bitcoin has high fees.
So Bitcoin starts to become more and more like a bank account, in fact worse, which is exactly the opposite of what it was created for.
I don't have any influence in Bitcoin, but I tell you this, I will vote with my money. If the fees hit more than 4$, then I am out of Bitcoin.
Sorry folks, if fees get higher then 4$, then you can shove your Buttcoin in your butt, with your 1 MB limit as well, I am out.
And I don't really want that to happen, I still believe that the block size can be raised, but if it doesn't, then I won't tolerate a fee higher than 4$.
I'd rather use Dogecoin, or Steem?
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
you might like this
Please re-steem if you do.
I don't agree with all points of it, but sure it's overally a good idea.
i 100% agree with this. I right now try to send $50 US it will cost me $9 that is just per insane.
The problem is that there is no other currency that is as strong as BTC that could replace it. Dash would be kinda it, but Dash can't even put out a lightweight open source wallet.
Litecoin on the other hand has a negative expectancy in price usually. I'd not put my money there.
Looks like diversification is the best strategy for now, until a strong, open source and vetter currency comes out.
yes atm all mine is spread in to a few different coins some stable some i hope will rise in the future. I just know soon this has to be fixed BTC is becoming something only the rich or people laundering money will use. Just out for hit i checked miner fee to send $5 on exodus will cost me $7 so more then 100% miner fee this is now a joke.
Fees for me are currently at 1.5$, and my transactions take 1-2 hours to confirm.
I guess by the time it hits 4$ and it will take 4-5 hours to confirm, I will have to sell my coins. That is the limit of my tolerance.
what wallet are you using. seams exodus has a really high miner fee and i might have to just pay it and trade to earn that $10 back i just hate to pay $10 to send $50
Sounds like a ripoff. I use electrum, the fee currently is about 0.003 for a 20 minute confirmation window, which is 5$.
I pay only 1.5$ but my transactions are slower (1-2 hours).
Was not bad before but last 4-5 days the fee for me is now .0044 to send .0277
Well it also depends on how the transaction is sent, most wallets send TX in bulk, which will increase their fee by default.
I suggest you to use Electrum it's better:
https://electrum.org
Now we have Bash (Bitcoin Cash). Finally after so fearful attempts like BU, XT - this is it. Not speculating about price. But the virtue of being able to set itself out of the clutches of manipulation.
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@tuventure/a-tale-of-three-bitcoins
I dont think there should be a debate. If you have ever worked with Swift you know how slow it goes, it bitcoin is almost maxed, who cares, its still 100x better than swift. More secure than currency. Boom. Job done, bitcoin could stay exactly the same, and I would be happy. Dont need to put a bow on gold!
Yes but it doesn't have to be this way. Bitcoin could be 1000x better already, but it isn't because if this conflict.
Im conservative, it already works and backs billions. lets just make sure it keeps doing that. Just my opinion. I dont think either options will be what happens. Keeping it stable is prefrenced over this "better" you speak of..... much much better than swift. One tech doesnt need to do everything, i dont need lightning speed transfers in bitcoin. Although its great to have in steem or some of the other really fast ones, thats great, but as far as a store of value goes, 24 hours is the perfect time range
my take.
I agree that it's better at the moment, but if the fee problem is not solved and you'll have 20$ fees, the n the market can easily crash back to oblivion. At which point it doesnt matter.
So better take a risk now than to have a higher risk later ,is my thought.
20$ fee for how high of a transaction?
Bitcoin transactions are not paid by volume size but by TX size. So a 10,000$ transaction might not mind paying a 20$ fee, but a 21 $ transaction might find a 20$ fee ridiculous.
I have never seen a fee for highest confirms over 2USD for 5grand in BTC, do you have any experience with this fee size? Cause, I dont think people will end up using bitcoin for 20$ transactions. Thats not its purpose. Its not intended nor does it need to do that. SO We will just get rid of anyone wanting to use it for 20$ transaction to a faster more economic block chain tech!
No I told here already that I am paying 1-3$ fees right now , on average 1.5$. When the average fee hits 4$, then I'm out.
I assume if this issue is not fixed, we might see 20$ fees easily, even for 10,000 satoshi transactions.
Of course people will quickly use altcoins then, since not everyone is rich enough to afford 20$ fees on stupid TX.
I have a feeling that the bottleneck and inefficiency will help incentivise other crypto-currencies.
Yep, they might strangle Bitcoin, but that will just let other coins flourish.
Even if they are actively trying to destroy Bitcoin, the other coins will just take it's place if it falls, and people will be more vigilant next time about these stupid "hacks & patches" like Segwit.
In my opinion Bitcoin will fail. Can you trust a currency that is reliant on vulnerable technology?? With the creation of a number of new competing cryptocurrencies being developed and eventually diluting the market. If a cyber attack occurred would your Bitcoin be safe. Would you intrust thousands of dollars to the system? How long before Government infiltrate this technology and causes it to fail? Why would Government do that? Because central banks will not tolerate a currency that they do not have complete control over, thats why. If they cause a failure in the system, then people will lose confidence in them, unless of course the federal government comes to the rescue and offers to insure the currency FDICA baby. Look what they did to Precious metals. The feds found a way to manipulate it and fix it. The banks simply print and sell enough paper contracts to dilute the market. Some say that there are up to 200 hundred paper contracts per ounce of gold. The silver and gold markets are easily moved by the simple push of a computer key. They must regulate it in order to keep the value of the dollar intact. The same is true with cryto. If they let the market run, paper currencies would diminish in value. Is it possible that the cryptocurrency was ordained by the central banks as a trail to see if people would buy into this type of monetary system? But for now enjoy the wealth it has created, just don't think they will let the party continue.
Well there are already suspicions that Bitcoin's mining algorithm might be weak:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashcash
And then of course the ASIC chips can be backdoored.
Or you can have a dangerous malware totally infest all ASIC miners.
Yes these are all potential threats that we should worry about. However the cost of these exploits would be billions of dollars.
And even if they execute it, people just wont stop with cryptocurrency, they will just find a way to make it more secure.
However you cant compare the rigging of the metal markets. That is a government market, totally controlled by the government.
In Bitcoin the government has far less influence and no direct control, only if they perfect a malware, which I pointed out above would cost, potentially billions.
Good luck. I have to say I am impressed with BC and I love the fact that it is not regulated. Big brother always kicks over the blocks after you stacked them so neatly .
You haven't explained why Segwit is bad here.
I didn't? I thoughts it's obvious. It has the liability of a 4mb block, but it only advertized itself as a 2 MB throughput, when in fact if you do the calculations it only gives like 20% bonus.
So it's effectively an 1.2 MB throughput with a 4MB liability.
We'd be better off with a 8MB block size increase then, if we go by this logic.
And don't give me that hardforks are dangerous. They aren't if they are executed properly. And the dangers of not acting are possibly worse than the risk of hardfork.
So by itself it is not an answer to scalability. I am thinking of a way to create a sidechain that gives you 32 MB blocks and parity with bitcoin wiyhout waiting for sidechains and without a bitcoin hf.
You can't really do that without sacrificing security. Most of what LN does is centralizes the transactions by coupling them into 1 pile and just using the hash on the chain.
This is an extreme form of compression, but it sacrifices security and transparency. It's horrible.
Either you have onchain transactions or your have IOU crap that can be easily sabotaged.
If it comes to that level, I will leave Bitcoin.