4 ms·

Users that already have a Bitcoin wallet don't have to jump through any hoops to spend BTC. It's just as easy as any kind of digital money transfer. Obviously

by Ruphin 8y ago

Users that already have a Bitcoin wallet don't have to jump through any hoops to spend BTC. It's just as easy as any kind of digital money transfer. Obviously using BTC to pay for anything is a huge hassle if you don't already have a wallet with some BTC in it. But that's like saying Apple Pay is inconvenient because your customers have to go to and buy an iPhone first.

scrumbledober 8y ago
except i don't need to wait for blockchain confirmations on apple pay, it's instant.
- whttheuuu 8y ago
  Confirmations are pretty quick now. And with Lightning is instant.
- sparkie 8y ago
  It's also reversible. With bitcoin, it might take a bit longer, but transaction are non-reversible after a few confirmations. Any other system can reverse payments even 6 months down the line. Sucks for businesses.
  - bluejellybean 8y ago
    I've heard this argument a few times now and while yes this is true for Bitcoin, there is nothing stopping another project from implementing this feature. Smart contracts, for example, make this type of feature open to any developer who wishes to code it. In my view, Bitcoin is like MySQL and cryptocurrency/blockchain is SQL. Sure bitcoin has specific limitations but any other generic cryptocurrency doesn't have to implement features in the same way.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      "Blockchain" is a database, but bitcoin is much more than its storage backend. The reason you can't simply replicate it is due to the monetary policy. In a world where anyone can make their own cryptocurrency, and we have "bluejellybeanBucks" and "sparkieSterling", how much value are these silly currencies going to have? Their value will converge towards zero as more of them are printed and less of them are actually useful for representing value. The whole point of Bitcoin was to solve this inflation problem. If you don't care about inflation, you don't need a "blockchain" to begin with. Bitcoin has the network effects, and it also required the creation (inflation) of some initial set of distributed digital asset because it was the first of its kind, and could not piggyback off of some other scarce, verifiable asset. Every other "cryptocurrency" that came afterwards, could piggyback of a scarce digital asset and avoid the inflation problem. They had Bitcoin to piggyback off. In future, all "blockchain" projects will be implemented as sidechains to bitcoin, or as payment networks which transact in Bitcoin and therefore don't create inflation by design. Things like the Liquid sidechain, Sidechain One (drivechains), Rootstock, Lightning network, etc. These are the "implementations" which will be competing for users, but they'll all be functioning on the same currency, because any currency other than Bitcoin is destined to lose value with time, due to the inflation they designed into their system.
      - bluejellybean 8y ago
        >"Blockchain" is a database, but bitcoin is much more than its storage backend. Blockchain in this context is referring to a specific set of implementation details to create a database. They are similar but not the same, a blockchain is a database but a database is not a blockchain. >The reason you can't simply replicate it is due to the monetary policy. I’m not fully grasping what you are implying here, mind explaining further? > In a world where anyone can make their own cryptocurrency, and we have "bluejellybeanBucks" and "sparkieSterling", how much value are these silly currencies going to have? This world already exists and the value of each should be somewhat independent, “bluejellybeanBucks” may have a feature that creates far more value than “sparkieSterling” for example. I would postulate that the majority of the currencies created will be low value but I don’t really see this as an issue with cryptocurrency in general. > Their value will converge towards zero as more of them are printed and less of them are actually useful for representing value. I don’t actually see an issue with this as market forces can handle this. If I have a street with a single Starbucks (bitcoin) serving the population adequately I can still open 20 more shops. The value will converge towards zero as more stores open, thus the closure of failed stores should occur. >The whole point of Bitcoin was to solve this inflation problem. If you don't care about inflation, you don't need a "blockchain" to begin with. Do you have a source for this claim? Although a touted difference between fiat and bitcoin, the idea of deflation isn’t limited to bitcoin. I could create bluejellybeanBucks to include the same mechanism that bitcoin does. I could also decide to print the currency at specific times or even give control to a central authority that will print money when deemed fit. > Bitcoin has the network effects, and it also required the creation (inflation) of some initial set of distributed digital asset because it was the first of its kind, and could not piggyback off of some other scarce, verifiable asset. While true Bitcoin does had the network effects, this does not mean another contender will be unable to rise to the top. Any cryptocurrency that one chooses to create can implement it in a way that mirrors bitcoin or piggyback off of some asset. > Every other "cryptocurrency" that came afterwards, could piggyback of a scarce digital asset and avoid the inflation problem. They had Bitcoin to piggyback off. Well, they didn’t have to and again, this is a choice in the development of each specific asset. > In future, all "blockchain" projects will be implemented as sidechains to bitcoin, or as payment networks which transact in Bitcoin and therefore don't create inflation by design. This is a little absurd to me and I don’t really see this future happening. In anycase, any predictions of the future here is mainly speculation. > Things like the Liquid sidechain, Sidechain One (drivechains), Rootstock, Lightning network, etc. These are the "implementations" which will be competing for users, but they'll all be functioning on the same currency, because any currency other than Bitcoin is destined to lose value with time, due to the inflation they designed into their system. Sure, the implementations you described are on bitcoin, but again, solutions of this sort can be applied generally to other cryptocurrencies. Any currency other than Bitcoin is NOT destined to lose value with time. If you are specifically talking about a currency that has inflation built in, sure I would agree, but when discussing a currency this isn’t necessarily the case.
- Ruphin 8y ago
  Most merchants I've dealt with accept a transaction in the mempool as enough confirmation of payment, which makes it nearly instant. If you want more strict safety/guarantees, sidechain solutions are starting to reach viability: https://medium.com/gitcoin/burner-wallet-at-ethdenver-was-faa3851ea833 https://medium.com/gitcoin/burner-wallet-at-ethdenver-was-fa... Technical solutions to problems like slow block times exist, but the engineering part is hard. Just like there's no technical reason why Linux can't be succesful for desktops, it takes time to implement all the details that make it a smooth experience. We'll get there eventually.

by Ruphin 8y ago

scrumbledober 8y ago

except i don't need to wait for blockchain confirmations on apple pay, it's instant.

whttheuuu 8y ago
Confirmations are pretty quick now. And with Lightning is instant.
sparkie 8y ago
It's also reversible. With bitcoin, it might take a bit longer, but transaction are non-reversible after a few confirmations. Any other system can reverse payments even 6 months down the line. Sucks for businesses.
- bluejellybean 8y ago
  I've heard this argument a few times now and while yes this is true for Bitcoin, there is nothing stopping another project from implementing this feature. Smart contracts, for example, make this type of feature open to any developer who wishes to code it. In my view, Bitcoin is like MySQL and cryptocurrency/blockchain is SQL. Sure bitcoin has specific limitations but any other generic cryptocurrency doesn't have to implement features in the same way.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    "Blockchain" is a database, but bitcoin is much more than its storage backend. The reason you can't simply replicate it is due to the monetary policy. In a world where anyone can make their own cryptocurrency, and we have "bluejellybeanBucks" and "sparkieSterling", how much value are these silly currencies going to have? Their value will converge towards zero as more of them are printed and less of them are actually useful for representing value. The whole point of Bitcoin was to solve this inflation problem. If you don't care about inflation, you don't need a "blockchain" to begin with. Bitcoin has the network effects, and it also required the creation (inflation) of some initial set of distributed digital asset because it was the first of its kind, and could not piggyback off of some other scarce, verifiable asset. Every other "cryptocurrency" that came afterwards, could piggyback of a scarce digital asset and avoid the inflation problem. They had Bitcoin to piggyback off. In future, all "blockchain" projects will be implemented as sidechains to bitcoin, or as payment networks which transact in Bitcoin and therefore don't create inflation by design. Things like the Liquid sidechain, Sidechain One (drivechains), Rootstock, Lightning network, etc. These are the "implementations" which will be competing for users, but they'll all be functioning on the same currency, because any currency other than Bitcoin is destined to lose value with time, due to the inflation they designed into their system.
    - bluejellybean 8y ago
      >"Blockchain" is a database, but bitcoin is much more than its storage backend. Blockchain in this context is referring to a specific set of implementation details to create a database. They are similar but not the same, a blockchain is a database but a database is not a blockchain. >The reason you can't simply replicate it is due to the monetary policy. I’m not fully grasping what you are implying here, mind explaining further? > In a world where anyone can make their own cryptocurrency, and we have "bluejellybeanBucks" and "sparkieSterling", how much value are these silly currencies going to have? This world already exists and the value of each should be somewhat independent, “bluejellybeanBucks” may have a feature that creates far more value than “sparkieSterling” for example. I would postulate that the majority of the currencies created will be low value but I don’t really see this as an issue with cryptocurrency in general. > Their value will converge towards zero as more of them are printed and less of them are actually useful for representing value. I don’t actually see an issue with this as market forces can handle this. If I have a street with a single Starbucks (bitcoin) serving the population adequately I can still open 20 more shops. The value will converge towards zero as more stores open, thus the closure of failed stores should occur. >The whole point of Bitcoin was to solve this inflation problem. If you don't care about inflation, you don't need a "blockchain" to begin with. Do you have a source for this claim? Although a touted difference between fiat and bitcoin, the idea of deflation isn’t limited to bitcoin. I could create bluejellybeanBucks to include the same mechanism that bitcoin does. I could also decide to print the currency at specific times or even give control to a central authority that will print money when deemed fit. > Bitcoin has the network effects, and it also required the creation (inflation) of some initial set of distributed digital asset because it was the first of its kind, and could not piggyback off of some other scarce, verifiable asset. While true Bitcoin does had the network effects, this does not mean another contender will be unable to rise to the top. Any cryptocurrency that one chooses to create can implement it in a way that mirrors bitcoin or piggyback off of some asset. > Every other "cryptocurrency" that came afterwards, could piggyback of a scarce digital asset and avoid the inflation problem. They had Bitcoin to piggyback off. Well, they didn’t have to and again, this is a choice in the development of each specific asset. > In future, all "blockchain" projects will be implemented as sidechains to bitcoin, or as payment networks which transact in Bitcoin and therefore don't create inflation by design. This is a little absurd to me and I don’t really see this future happening. In anycase, any predictions of the future here is mainly speculation. > Things like the Liquid sidechain, Sidechain One (drivechains), Rootstock, Lightning network, etc. These are the "implementations" which will be competing for users, but they'll all be functioning on the same currency, because any currency other than Bitcoin is destined to lose value with time, due to the inflation they designed into their system. Sure, the implementations you described are on bitcoin, but again, solutions of this sort can be applied generally to other cryptocurrencies. Any currency other than Bitcoin is NOT destined to lose value with time. If you are specifically talking about a currency that has inflation built in, sure I would agree, but when discussing a currency this isn’t necessarily the case.
Ruphin 8y ago
Most merchants I've dealt with accept a transaction in the mempool as enough confirmation of payment, which makes it nearly instant. If you want more strict safety/guarantees, sidechain solutions are starting to reach viability: https://medium.com/gitcoin/burner-wallet-at-ethdenver-was-faa3851ea833 https://medium.com/gitcoin/burner-wallet-at-ethdenver-was-fa... Technical solutions to problems like slow block times exist, but the engineering part is hard. Just like there's no technical reason why Linux can't be succesful for desktops, it takes time to implement all the details that make it a smooth experience. We'll get there eventually.