5 ms·

> It's clear you didn't even pretend to read it. Or understand all the problems listed. Payments is just a part of the first article. The sequel doesn't even ta

> It's clear you didn't even pretend to read it. Or understand all the problems listed. Payments is just a part of the first article. The sequel doesn't even talk about payments. it's clear you didn't even pretend reading my comments or understand the words i'm writing. we can be playing this game all day. > Amount of value exchanged on bitcoin !== it's useful for payments. Actual payments (you know, for goods and services) are a very, very, very tiny fraction of exchanges. since when you're the authority on what counts as useful and what counts as actual? > The key feature of a new payment system is the confidence that if the goods aren’t as described you’ll get your money back that might be the key feature in the payment system of your choice, but it's the anti-feature for people who find bitcoin valuable. finality of transactions is way more important and on top of a system with finality you can build all sorts of escrow services that offer money-back due to customer dissatisfaction and what not. without finality your payment system is worth shit. > The government-backed banking system provides FDIC guarantees, reversibility of ACH, identity verification, audit standards, and an investigation system when things go wrong. Bitcoin, by design, has none of these things again, all anti features. i don't want them in a system that handles my assets. thank you very much. > In terms of micropayments, people enthuse that bitcoin transactions are free and instant. Actually, they take about eight minutes to clear and cost about four cents to process. <- This is now outdated. It's significantly worse now. Median confirmation time is ~10 minutes (and was as high as 25 minutes just a few months ago [1]) and transaction fees ar $13 to $30[2] this also shows how clueless you yourself are in anything bitcoin related. confirmation time is a function of hashrate fluctuations, not some inherent property of bitcoin that gets worse with time. and the article author is obviously clueless for even claiming nonsense like "people enthuse that bitcoin transactions are free and instant", his exposure to bitcoin is probably a single drunk talk in a bar. and btw in payment channels payments are instant and essentially free and unlike visa and other payment processors, payment channels are completely independent and dont require centralized coordination, so i can already claim with all seriousness that bitcoin is able to process unlimited number of transactions per second. read up on the topic before arguing. PS I personally made an on chain payment today, the fee was less than $2, which is still great considering that micropayments were never supposed to be on chain to begin with. And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year because Bitcoin is more expensive and fees are denominated in bitcoin, duh.

dmitriid 6y ago
> but it's the anti-feature > again, all anti features. Ah yes. "Anti-features" like protecting your money. It's easy to "refute" the point and call the author "clueless" if you just call anything useful an anti-feature. > this also shows how clueless you yourself are in anything bitcoin related. and immediately: > And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year So you're just confirming the point tht the author said and my update to his numbers. > micropayments were never supposed to be on chain to begin with. That's some interesting mental gymnastics. So, according to you, bitcoin is not a worthless payment system, but at the same time you're claiming that it's not supposed to handle the largest chunk of what payment systems routinely handle. I guess, micropayments are an anti-feature, too?
- keymone 6y ago
  > Ah yes. "Anti-features" like protecting your money. they aren't protecting your money, they are protecting the financial system in which you're currently being fucked but it happens so slowly that you've fooled yourself into enjoying it. > It's easy to "refute" the point and call the author "clueless" if you just call anything useful an anti-feature. how can you not? bitcoin has transaction finality by design. that's the purpose of bitcoin. that's one of the core features. when somebody comes criticizing bitcoin for not having an opposite anti-feature - what are they if not clueless? > > And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year quoting out of context should be bannable offence. also you're just displaying your own ignorance and inability to understand a trivial thing - fees in bitcoin denominated in bitcoin didn't change, price of bitcoin change. > So, according to you, bitcoin is not a worthless payment system, but at the same time you're claiming that it's not supposed to handle the largest chunk of what payment systems routinely handle nah, you just didn't understand words. i'll break it down: bitcoin is a system with limited on-chain settlement capacity due to reasons. this means that lower value settlements will get priced out by higher value settlements because higher value settlements can afford to include larger fee. on top of this system one can in context of single on-chain settlement execute billions microtransactions with micro-fees that in aggregate make the onchain settlement economically viable. so bitcoin is very much capable of handling unlimited number of transactions per second, you just don't understand how it achieves that. your understanding is on the level of "so your shipping containers with motors attached cant even cross the atlantic ? what's the points in that?", missing entirely the idea of container ships.

dmitriid 6y ago

> but it's the anti-feature > again, all anti features. Ah yes. "Anti-features" like protecting your money. It's easy to "refute" the point and call the author "clueless" if you just call anything useful an anti-feature. > this also shows how clueless you yourself are in anything bitcoin related. and immediately: > And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year So you're just confirming the point tht the author said and my update to his numbers. > micropayments were never supposed to be on chain to begin with. That's some interesting mental gymnastics. So, according to you, bitcoin is not a worthless payment system, but at the same time you're claiming that it's not supposed to handle the largest chunk of what payment systems routinely handle. I guess, micropayments are an anti-feature, too?

keymone 6y ago
> Ah yes. "Anti-features" like protecting your money. they aren't protecting your money, they are protecting the financial system in which you're currently being fucked but it happens so slowly that you've fooled yourself into enjoying it. > It's easy to "refute" the point and call the author "clueless" if you just call anything useful an anti-feature. how can you not? bitcoin has transaction finality by design. that's the purpose of bitcoin. that's one of the core features. when somebody comes criticizing bitcoin for not having an opposite anti-feature - what are they if not clueless? > > And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year quoting out of context should be bannable offence. also you're just displaying your own ignorance and inability to understand a trivial thing - fees in bitcoin denominated in bitcoin didn't change, price of bitcoin change. > So, according to you, bitcoin is not a worthless payment system, but at the same time you're claiming that it's not supposed to handle the largest chunk of what payment systems routinely handle nah, you just didn't understand words. i'll break it down: bitcoin is a system with limited on-chain settlement capacity due to reasons. this means that lower value settlements will get priced out by higher value settlements because higher value settlements can afford to include larger fee. on top of this system one can in context of single on-chain settlement execute billions microtransactions with micro-fees that in aggregate make the onchain settlement economically viable. so bitcoin is very much capable of handling unlimited number of transactions per second, you just don't understand how it achieves that. your understanding is on the level of "so your shipping containers with motors attached cant even cross the atlantic ? what's the points in that?", missing entirely the idea of container ships.