5 ms·

One would assume that Visa (yes they already announced support of crypto) etc transactions would be off-chain, so network transaction rate isn't that important.

ciupicri 5y ago
Then they wouldn't be quite cryptocurrency transactions.
- charbuff 5y ago
  You'll be surprised to know that a cryptocurrency transaction is a record on a ledger of a transfer of some value. Whether it happens "off-chain" or not does not discount it being a crypto-currency transaction. What the poster above is referring to are "level 2" solutions, for example [1] the Lightning Network for Bitcoin. In short, the crypto is being transacted on one network, then that record is finalized along with others on the Bitcoin ledger. [1]: https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-for-beginners/what-is-the-lightning-network-in-bitcoin-and-how-does-it-work https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-for-beginners/what-is-the-...
- emteycz 5y ago
  Did I pay with crypto? Did someone receive crypto? Then it's a crypto transaction.
croon 5y ago
So it will be cryptocurrency in name only. We are truly living through a bubble of stupid money. I have no idea where it's headed but I hope anyone getting hurt can take it.
- nikanj 5y ago
  My shoeshine tells me it’s headed to the moon!
- emteycz 5y ago
  Nah, there is still the blockchain underneath, the only difference is that changes are synced later.
  - croon 5y ago
    > the only difference is that changes are synced later. Says who? You've just ignored the trustless part of cryptocurrency, what are you left with? I get the hypothetical of why [cryptocurrency of choice] could be useful, even if I don't subscribe to the idea of a trustless society functioning. But if you sidestep the one thing it's laboriously designed for (trustless by PoW, or stake/other), why even bother?
    - emteycz 5y ago
      If changes are not synced later, Visa just paid for my lunch. Why not... I don't have to sidestep it forever and ever since I buy lunch via VisaBTC. And me buying lunch changes nothing about me receiving funds.
      - croon 5y ago
        How is that different from just settling between banks? There's an end record of transactions with traditional banks already. You just trust the end result to be accurate. The only selling point of bitcoin was that everything was recorded and immutable, and thus volume was transparent. If all of these transactions happen outside of the blockchain (until later, maybe) you can fudge around with trading volume, and game the market, which exchanges have already done. You are literally just describing banking as it has existed forever, but with less oversight.
        emteycz 5y ago
        Nah, oversight is even better than before. I am describing banking without the issues of banks. No need to have a headache because my transaction from Iran to EU is lost somewhere in between without any traceability whatsoever, etc; no need to have a headache because the receiver didn't realize it'll cost them $100 to receive money internationally, etc; no need to think about the hardship of pulling my own money out of the bank while I'm not in my home country, etc... Then there's smart contracts - show me a bank that supports it? Show me groups of banks (because not everyone has the same, right?) that support it among each other? > all of these transactions Again, that's your mistake. That most transactions happen off-chain doesn't mean all or the important ones do. And it also doesn't mean there aren't cross off-chain network transactions - e.g. VisaBTC to MCBTC needs a blockchain to happen in a trustless way. Trust is easy when it's Visa to MC but not so easy when it's EU to Iran banking system. > You just trust the end result to be accurate Hahahaha, good luck in Africa...

ciupicri 5y ago

Then they wouldn't be quite cryptocurrency transactions.

charbuff 5y ago
You'll be surprised to know that a cryptocurrency transaction is a record on a ledger of a transfer of some value. Whether it happens "off-chain" or not does not discount it being a crypto-currency transaction. What the poster above is referring to are "level 2" solutions, for example [1] the Lightning Network for Bitcoin. In short, the crypto is being transacted on one network, then that record is finalized along with others on the Bitcoin ledger. [1]: https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-for-beginners/what-is-the-lightning-network-in-bitcoin-and-how-does-it-work https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-for-beginners/what-is-the-...
emteycz 5y ago
Did I pay with crypto? Did someone receive crypto? Then it's a crypto transaction.

croon 5y ago

So it will be cryptocurrency in name only. We are truly living through a bubble of stupid money. I have no idea where it's headed but I hope anyone getting hurt can take it.

nikanj 5y ago
My shoeshine tells me it’s headed to the moon!
emteycz 5y ago
Nah, there is still the blockchain underneath, the only difference is that changes are synced later.
- croon 5y ago
  > the only difference is that changes are synced later. Says who? You've just ignored the trustless part of cryptocurrency, what are you left with? I get the hypothetical of why [cryptocurrency of choice] could be useful, even if I don't subscribe to the idea of a trustless society functioning. But if you sidestep the one thing it's laboriously designed for (trustless by PoW, or stake/other), why even bother?
  - emteycz 5y ago
    If changes are not synced later, Visa just paid for my lunch. Why not... I don't have to sidestep it forever and ever since I buy lunch via VisaBTC. And me buying lunch changes nothing about me receiving funds.
    - croon 5y ago
      How is that different from just settling between banks? There's an end record of transactions with traditional banks already. You just trust the end result to be accurate. The only selling point of bitcoin was that everything was recorded and immutable, and thus volume was transparent. If all of these transactions happen outside of the blockchain (until later, maybe) you can fudge around with trading volume, and game the market, which exchanges have already done. You are literally just describing banking as it has existed forever, but with less oversight.
      - emteycz 5y ago
        Nah, oversight is even better than before. I am describing banking without the issues of banks. No need to have a headache because my transaction from Iran to EU is lost somewhere in between without any traceability whatsoever, etc; no need to have a headache because the receiver didn't realize it'll cost them $100 to receive money internationally, etc; no need to think about the hardship of pulling my own money out of the bank while I'm not in my home country, etc... Then there's smart contracts - show me a bank that supports it? Show me groups of banks (because not everyone has the same, right?) that support it among each other? > all of these transactions Again, that's your mistake. That most transactions happen off-chain doesn't mean all or the important ones do. And it also doesn't mean there aren't cross off-chain network transactions - e.g. VisaBTC to MCBTC needs a blockchain to happen in a trustless way. Trust is easy when it's Visa to MC but not so easy when it's EU to Iran banking system. > You just trust the end result to be accurate Hahahaha, good luck in Africa...