5 ms·

I don't think it's weird to focus on Ethereum as, as the article correctly states, most new currencies are not a separate chain themselves but are simply tokens

I don't think it's weird to focus on Ethereum as, as the article correctly states, most new currencies are not a separate chain themselves but are simply tokens on the Ethereum blockchain. Ethereum is also the only blockchain with a real developer community, and the article focuses on building applications. Microsoft didn't abandon Bitcoin because it was overpriced, they abandoned it because it was volatile. One could argue that a blockchain's only real world purpose is as a shared database, just as http's only real world purpose is the transfer of data between computers.

fortythirteen 9y ago
> Microsoft didn't abandon Bitcoin because it was overpriced, they abandoned it because it was volatile. It was "volatile" when they adopted it. It's now volatile and overpriced. If MS thought that Bitcoin was a good investment, volatile or not, they would have stuck with it. "Volatile" is acting as an excuse for their real sentiment, that it's time to short Bitcoin.
- cantrip 9y ago
  You don't generally hold onto Bitcoin when you take it as payment, you sell it immediately, so no, Microsoft was not "investing" in Bitcoin by taking it as a payment for their products and they're not shorting Bitcoin either. The volatility is what makes it untenable as payment, as you can't sell it fast enough to ensure that you get the same exchange rate you gave to the customer.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    > The volatility is what makes it untenable as payment, as you can't sell it fast enough to ensure that you get the same exchange rate you gave to the customer. Absolutely false. Speculation has driven the value of bitcoin so high that the average transaction fee, at the time of writing this, is about $31. Buying a $59.99 game for Xbox One will cost you $90 in Bitcoin. That is an individual hash, that must be consolidated into a larger wallet for MS to sell off. Consolidating that hash will cost a transaction fee, meaning that, on a $60 game, MS will lose over 50% of the gross profit in a transaction fee. That alone makes it not worth it. The only thing that would allow them to retain a higher percentage of the transaction would be for the Bitcoin bubble to burst, making that whole $60 worthless. Bitcoin could be wholly volatile within it's 2016 prices and MS would be just fine. It is directly because of it's exploded, overpriced value that it's untenable as an actual currency.
    - debaserab2 9y ago
      I have a question as a relatively uninformed spectator: where do these transaction fees go and why do they have to be so high?
      - rlanday 9y ago
        A miner that successfully mines a block collects all the transaction fees for transactions in the block. They are high right now because many people want to send transactions, but blocks are capped at 1 MB, limiting the number of transactions that can fit into one block. Blocks are produced approximately once every ten minutes, so a transaction that contains a fee that’s too low will constantly get passed over in favor of higher-fee transactions.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - fortythirteen 9y ago
        > where do these transaction fees go and why do they have to be so high? They go to the miners who verify transactions. They're high because of the combination of the overall ridiculous price of bitcoin (since the miner gets paid in bitcoin) and the amount of computing power required to successfully mine. The latter means that miners are only willing to verify if the return over time will turn them a profit on the cost of hardware.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- arisAlexis 9y ago
  please tell us the real reasons. microsoft to short bitcoin. do you know gossip about VPs too?
takeda 9y ago
> Microsoft didn't abandon Bitcoin because it was overpriced, they abandoned it because it was volatile. Volatile and also large fees. Here is Steam describing why it was a pain of using it: http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613 http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/...
Goladus 9y ago
> One could argue that a blockchain's only real world purpose is as a shared database, just as http's only real world purpose is the transfer of data between computers. So far it seems like the only thing anyone actually makes based on this shared database are new mini-currencies.
- justincormack 9y ago
  Again, useful applications being crowded out by speculative ones. Why bother making anything if you can apparently trivially print money. Until the bubble ends.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    Can we at least articulate a useful application, one that takes into consideration economic viability in the context of the decentralized consensus engine's extremely high resource cost and extremely poor performance?

fortythirteen 9y ago

> Microsoft didn't abandon Bitcoin because it was overpriced, they abandoned it because it was volatile. It was "volatile" when they adopted it. It's now volatile and overpriced. If MS thought that Bitcoin was a good investment, volatile or not, they would have stuck with it. "Volatile" is acting as an excuse for their real sentiment, that it's time to short Bitcoin.

cantrip 9y ago
You don't generally hold onto Bitcoin when you take it as payment, you sell it immediately, so no, Microsoft was not "investing" in Bitcoin by taking it as a payment for their products and they're not shorting Bitcoin either. The volatility is what makes it untenable as payment, as you can't sell it fast enough to ensure that you get the same exchange rate you gave to the customer.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  > The volatility is what makes it untenable as payment, as you can't sell it fast enough to ensure that you get the same exchange rate you gave to the customer. Absolutely false. Speculation has driven the value of bitcoin so high that the average transaction fee, at the time of writing this, is about $31. Buying a $59.99 game for Xbox One will cost you $90 in Bitcoin. That is an individual hash, that must be consolidated into a larger wallet for MS to sell off. Consolidating that hash will cost a transaction fee, meaning that, on a $60 game, MS will lose over 50% of the gross profit in a transaction fee. That alone makes it not worth it. The only thing that would allow them to retain a higher percentage of the transaction would be for the Bitcoin bubble to burst, making that whole $60 worthless. Bitcoin could be wholly volatile within it's 2016 prices and MS would be just fine. It is directly because of it's exploded, overpriced value that it's untenable as an actual currency.
  - debaserab2 9y ago
    I have a question as a relatively uninformed spectator: where do these transaction fees go and why do they have to be so high?
    - rlanday 9y ago
      A miner that successfully mines a block collects all the transaction fees for transactions in the block. They are high right now because many people want to send transactions, but blocks are capped at 1 MB, limiting the number of transactions that can fit into one block. Blocks are produced approximately once every ten minutes, so a transaction that contains a fee that’s too low will constantly get passed over in favor of higher-fee transactions.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - fortythirteen 9y ago
      > where do these transaction fees go and why do they have to be so high? They go to the miners who verify transactions. They're high because of the combination of the overall ridiculous price of bitcoin (since the miner gets paid in bitcoin) and the amount of computing power required to successfully mine. The latter means that miners are only willing to verify if the return over time will turn them a profit on the cost of hardware.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
arisAlexis 9y ago
please tell us the real reasons. microsoft to short bitcoin. do you know gossip about VPs too?

takeda 9y ago

> Microsoft didn't abandon Bitcoin because it was overpriced, they abandoned it because it was volatile. Volatile and also large fees. Here is Steam describing why it was a pain of using it: http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613 http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/...

Goladus 9y ago

> One could argue that a blockchain's only real world purpose is as a shared database, just as http's only real world purpose is the transfer of data between computers. So far it seems like the only thing anyone actually makes based on this shared database are new mini-currencies.

justincormack 9y ago
Again, useful applications being crowded out by speculative ones. Why bother making anything if you can apparently trivially print money. Until the bubble ends.
- Goladus 9y ago
  Can we at least articulate a useful application, one that takes into consideration economic viability in the context of the decentralized consensus engine's extremely high resource cost and extremely poor performance?