3 ms·
I don't know much about bitcoin i'll admit. And I was surpised the other day to read some comments where the poster was saying that the transaction price is som
by duiker101 9y ago
I don't know much about bitcoin i'll admit. And I was surpised the other day to read some comments where the poster was saying that the transaction price is somewhere in between 5$ - 20$. Isn't that like... a LOT? I thought the idea of Bitcoins was how easy it would be to make transactions but with a price like that I can image most smaller transactions are discouraged. Also, after the initial hype I haven't really seen much of an implementation of payments in Bitcoins.
So... other than the hype, what's driving the price up if I guess the price is going up way faster than the implementation?
- Qub3d 9y agoThe high transaction fees are symptomatic a large problem that not only has divided the community, its literally forked the currency. There are several proposed solutions, but unless a majority of all bitcoin users agree to implement it, it won't happen. Here's a rundown of what's happened: https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7 https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experi...
- VMG 9y agoThe fee and scaling issues are being addressed in a second-layer solution: http://lightning.network/ http://lightning.network/
- 3pt14159 9y agoHere is what will happen in the long run: Lightning networks will allow common people to transact and will semi-centralize the blockchain across a couple partners, kinda like banks. Over time and for the people that don't really need to be on chain, these banks will start taking over the transactions between each other and just broadcasting signatures from their bitcoin keys to match deposits vs obligations so that people can be assured that they have what they say they have. If you need to move $100k, you can always do it on the real blockchain, or from your bank to the real blockchain, but the chain is going to turn into the banking system. Originally I thought there could only be one cryptocurrency, and that is at least for now looking to be incorrect. But I don't really know how all this plays out. There is a huge market incentive to get in on a coin early, but if there are infinite crytpocurrencies then they all get devalued. Probably the winners of the current system will use their money to push for regulations to stop new currencies from coming out. So Bitcoin, Etherium, etc will get entrenched. Then I'd guess maybe 3 to 10 currencies survive in the long run, provided they don't get regulated out of existence in the first place.
- BLanen 9y agoEvery time bitcoin is proven to be bad at something, people start saying "actually, it's not even going to be used for x, it's going to be used for y". Lightning network is a joke that doesn't work.
- cableshaft 9y ago> There is a huge market incentive to get in on a coin early, but if there are infinite crytpocurrencies then they all get devalued. I don't think that's true that an unlimited number of cryptocurrencies existing will devalue others. It might affect public perception (confusion and skepticism for some, thus those people don't participate at all) and affect the value a bit, but not significantly. Just like I could collect all my toenail clippings, give it a fancy name (like NailCoin), and try passing it off as currency won't even make a blip in any other currency anywhere, all these coins that fail to get any traction are not going to be able to affect the rest of cryptocurrencies.