4 ms·
Bitcoin is terrible for transacting (slow, expensive, traceable), but I think its use case will be to provide a store of value, hence the "digital gold" descrip
by Aaronstotle 7y ago
Bitcoin is terrible for transacting (slow, expensive, traceable), but I think its use case will be to provide a store of value, hence the "digital gold" description.
Monero is closer to Internet's native money imo, and that doesn't seem to have nearly the drastic swings that BTC has had in the last few months.
That being said, use case for store of value is difficult since whales can manipulate the price so easily.
- jmeyer2k 7y agoIt doesn't have to be terrible for transacting though. There are tons of ways to make Bitcoin better, but nobody wants to try them.
- brink 7y agoWhy make bitcoin better when you can just reimplement it from the ground up? Look at Stellar. Transactions take <5 seconds and the chain is kind to the environment with trust based transactions rather than POW.
- companyhen 7y agoLook at how centralized Stellar is and then you have your answer for <5s tx
- jmeyer2k 7y agoThere is the question of, is trustlessness even needed or is federation enough?
- wtsnz 7y agothe Bitcoin SV project is trying them out https://bitcoinsv.io/ https://bitcoinsv.io/
- qertoip 7y agoBitcoin SV is a scam created by well known fraudster Craig Wright.
- qertoip 7y agoIt is blazing fast in practice. Most merchants accept 0-conf transactions once they propagate p2p. Some merchants already implemented Lightning Network. Together, that means about 2-20 seconds for vast majority of payments. It is not expensive. Currently fees are in cents per on-chain transaction. And basically 0 for Lightning Network payments. It is traceable though and that is indeed a big issue going forward. Again, Lightning Network helps to some extent but much more is needed.
- parkaboy 7y agoDoesn't Lightning Network at least solve the slow and expensive part?
- ericb 7y agoSort of, but by introducing 5 more problems that no one wants to deal with.