5 ms·

Why do people assume that Bitcoin is going to revolutionize the banking sector when it cannot even scale? Why would we want to subject the poorest to a system t

by afreak 11y ago

Why do people assume that Bitcoin is going to revolutionize the banking sector when it cannot even scale? Why would we want to subject the poorest to a system that won't be able to handle at best more than a handful of transactions per second? Bitcoin is literally a bottom-tier system and suggesting that we use it to help those who are financially not-well-off is insulting.

drcross 11y ago
Bitcoin can, and is in the process of scaling.
- McGlockenshire 11y ago
  Transactions per second are bound to the block size. The mining groups in China are against raising the block size because of bandwidth and other realistic concerns. The core developers, many of whom are employed by a company that has a business model that has a higher chance of success if bitcoin does not raise the block size, can neither agree that the block size needs to be increased, nor how to perform the increase, nor to what size to increase it to. Even if they could agree, the Chinese miners wouldn't update their software, and we'd end up with a forked blockchain. The primary places where bitcoin is discussed are moderated by a single individual that considers things like XT and implementations of BIP-101 to be altcoins and actively shuts down discussions about them and other block size increases. It seems to me that bitcoin isn't in the process of scaling at all.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    It's tragedy of the commons. Bitcoin is designed for having rational actors as miners. The miners profit less from the larger block sizes, and since they control the block size it's not going to happen. Bitcoin users who think the miners will do it "for the good of bitcoin" don't realize that the entire bitcoin ecosystem is built on the miners acting in their own best interest, not bitcoin's.
    - wmf 11y ago
      http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/ http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-us...
      - bduerst 11y ago
        If the bitcoin consumers were king, then the majority of them would collude and stop hoarding their bitcoins. But they can't, because they're rational like the miners. Bitcoins are deflationary and always going to be traded as an asset, for which the small block size suffices and the Miners will continue to profit from. The bitcoin consumers can as much influence the miners as they can influence each other to voluntarily lose wealth.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      I wouldn't call that a tragedy of the commons. I would call that "capitalism" because it is exactly the relationship between the owners of the means of production and everyone else. "But anyone can become a miner" so it's free as in market and fair as in game. /s
      - bduerst 11y ago
        It's tragedy of the commons because the miners are trying to reap from a shared resource, with no alignment to the changes that are beneficial for Bitcoin.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - CyberDildonics 11y ago
      Miners profit more from bigger blocks due to more transaction fees.
      - bduerst 11y ago
        Miners profit from increased competition (for transactions to be included in smaller blocks) increasing the transaction fees. Only transactions with the highest fees are put into blocks. It was proven several times with the "stress tests" of Bitcoin network.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    The Chinese miners are worried about the block size _LIMIT_ (not the block size) getting too much bigger so that their greater latency reduces their mining effectiveness. They aren't against any increase as far as I know. The criticism isn't invalid, but I think the pessimism is. The miners are ultimately in control, not the blockstream idiots.
- davidgerard 11y ago
  Bitcoin can't - the transaction limit is in the protocol. The community has bitterly resisted all attempts to raise it, so the only way around it are various proposals to use sidechains, i.e. altcoins somehow pegged to Bitcoin. None of these have achieved running code as yet.
joosters 11y ago
When an article simply states, with absolutely no attempt at justification, 'But how do you solve this? Bitcoin will be the solution', you can just give up there and then. The author is a lost cause.
CyberDildonics 11y ago
There are literally already lots of people in other countries who are saving a larger percentage of their money by using bitcoin even if they don't know it. Remittances from Filipino maids in southeast asia are already an up and coming area. All they do is go to a small stall in a shopping mall, and all their family has to do is go to a small stall in a shopping mall in Manila. Now any two people can set up a back and forth settlement using btc.
- afreak 11y ago
  And how many of these anecdotes do you have going here? BTC is not simple enough to allow regular people to send remittances to other countries. Also you're willfully ignoring the fact that Bitcoin doesn't scale. Are you telling me that people who send their money overseas are going to wait for BTC to process their payment which may take an insane period of time seeing that right now Bitcoin can only process 1-3 transactions per second? What is in place right now works fine for those who want to send money overseas to their families. Hell, it doesn't require a day's worth of electricity consumption by an average home to do so.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    > BTC is not simple enough to allow regular people to send remittances to other countries. They are using companies to do it. There are also multiple bitcoin atms in other countries. Also a company in thailand has made it so anyone can send btc to a code, and someone using that code can get cash from the atm. > Are you telling me that people who send their money overseas are going to wait for BTC to process their payment which may take an insane period of time seeing that right now Bitcoin can only process 1-3 transactions per second? This is so far off base I have to wonder if you have even used bitcoin or if you are just threatened by it in some way. I've bought things with it many times including very recently. Transactions take 1-2 seconds to show up, and the same 10 minutes per miner confirmation that they always have (coinbase will let you use money after 3 confirmations). > What is in place right now works fine for those who want to send money overseas to their families. Hell, it doesn't require a day's worth of electricity consumption by an average home to do so. Both of these things are total bullshit. Gouging people who already have very little money for 11% just for them to send it to their families is not 'working' and your electricity idea is so ridiculous I think the burden of proof is on you ( and keep in mind that more transactions don't use up more electricity).

by afreak 11y ago

drcross 11y ago

Bitcoin can, and is in the process of scaling.

McGlockenshire 11y ago
Transactions per second are bound to the block size. The mining groups in China are against raising the block size because of bandwidth and other realistic concerns. The core developers, many of whom are employed by a company that has a business model that has a higher chance of success if bitcoin does not raise the block size, can neither agree that the block size needs to be increased, nor how to perform the increase, nor to what size to increase it to. Even if they could agree, the Chinese miners wouldn't update their software, and we'd end up with a forked blockchain. The primary places where bitcoin is discussed are moderated by a single individual that considers things like XT and implementations of BIP-101 to be altcoins and actively shuts down discussions about them and other block size increases. It seems to me that bitcoin isn't in the process of scaling at all.
- bduerst 11y ago
  It's tragedy of the commons. Bitcoin is designed for having rational actors as miners. The miners profit less from the larger block sizes, and since they control the block size it's not going to happen. Bitcoin users who think the miners will do it "for the good of bitcoin" don't realize that the entire bitcoin ecosystem is built on the miners acting in their own best interest, not bitcoin's.
  - wmf 11y ago
    http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/ http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-us...
    - bduerst 11y ago
      If the bitcoin consumers were king, then the majority of them would collude and stop hoarding their bitcoins. But they can't, because they're rational like the miners. Bitcoins are deflationary and always going to be traded as an asset, for which the small block size suffices and the Miners will continue to profit from. The bitcoin consumers can as much influence the miners as they can influence each other to voluntarily lose wealth.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    I wouldn't call that a tragedy of the commons. I would call that "capitalism" because it is exactly the relationship between the owners of the means of production and everyone else. "But anyone can become a miner" so it's free as in market and fair as in game. /s
    - bduerst 11y ago
      It's tragedy of the commons because the miners are trying to reap from a shared resource, with no alignment to the changes that are beneficial for Bitcoin.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    Miners profit more from bigger blocks due to more transaction fees.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Miners profit from increased competition (for transactions to be included in smaller blocks) increasing the transaction fees. Only transactions with the highest fees are put into blocks. It was proven several times with the "stress tests" of Bitcoin network.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  The Chinese miners are worried about the block size _LIMIT_ (not the block size) getting too much bigger so that their greater latency reduces their mining effectiveness. They aren't against any increase as far as I know. The criticism isn't invalid, but I think the pessimism is. The miners are ultimately in control, not the blockstream idiots.
davidgerard 11y ago
Bitcoin can't - the transaction limit is in the protocol. The community has bitterly resisted all attempts to raise it, so the only way around it are various proposals to use sidechains, i.e. altcoins somehow pegged to Bitcoin. None of these have achieved running code as yet.

joosters 11y ago

When an article simply states, with absolutely no attempt at justification, 'But how do you solve this? Bitcoin will be the solution', you can just give up there and then. The author is a lost cause.

CyberDildonics 11y ago

There are literally already lots of people in other countries who are saving a larger percentage of their money by using bitcoin even if they don't know it. Remittances from Filipino maids in southeast asia are already an up and coming area. All they do is go to a small stall in a shopping mall, and all their family has to do is go to a small stall in a shopping mall in Manila. Now any two people can set up a back and forth settlement using btc.

afreak 11y ago
And how many of these anecdotes do you have going here? BTC is not simple enough to allow regular people to send remittances to other countries. Also you're willfully ignoring the fact that Bitcoin doesn't scale. Are you telling me that people who send their money overseas are going to wait for BTC to process their payment which may take an insane period of time seeing that right now Bitcoin can only process 1-3 transactions per second? What is in place right now works fine for those who want to send money overseas to their families. Hell, it doesn't require a day's worth of electricity consumption by an average home to do so.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  > BTC is not simple enough to allow regular people to send remittances to other countries. They are using companies to do it. There are also multiple bitcoin atms in other countries. Also a company in thailand has made it so anyone can send btc to a code, and someone using that code can get cash from the atm. > Are you telling me that people who send their money overseas are going to wait for BTC to process their payment which may take an insane period of time seeing that right now Bitcoin can only process 1-3 transactions per second? This is so far off base I have to wonder if you have even used bitcoin or if you are just threatened by it in some way. I've bought things with it many times including very recently. Transactions take 1-2 seconds to show up, and the same 10 minutes per miner confirmation that they always have (coinbase will let you use money after 3 confirmations). > What is in place right now works fine for those who want to send money overseas to their families. Hell, it doesn't require a day's worth of electricity consumption by an average home to do so. Both of these things are total bullshit. Gouging people who already have very little money for 11% just for them to send it to their families is not 'working' and your electricity idea is so ridiculous I think the burden of proof is on you ( and keep in mind that more transactions don't use up more electricity).