(11-15-2017 03:13 AM)fenetre Wrote: Yes, Bitcoin has evolved to meet the demands of the market. There is more of a need for a store of value coin than a Visa/Mastercard replacement.
Using your logic then computer code is worthless? You can't get your hands on that either. What on earth are you going on about. smh
Clearly bitcoin will continue to upgrade and improve its infrastructure. Your claim of $100 fees is a lie. Even anti-bitcoin ideologues only exaggerate fee levels at $20/30 so that's telling.
Just last night I made a significant $ transaction and paid $4. The transaction was confirmed in 11 minutes.
Anybody who knows anything about bitcoin knows that increasing the block size is only a temporary fix. It doesn't solve the structural issue. Unless you're talking about increasing the size to something like 1GB but that would have the effect of centralising the network.
The slow and decentralised pace of change with bitcoin is a plus. It's pretty much as decentralised as major cryptos go. But I'm repeating myself.
Your tone is inflammatory which indicates you know everything already and dialogue is pointless. Good luck
Well, if by demands of the market you mean it's the most accessible fiat on-ramp to this get-rich-quick just HODL trust me™ world that is the current cryptocurrency market, due to its first-mover advantage, then yes I do agree with you that Bitcoin is meeting the demands of the market.
Since you seemed to have some trouble understanding my post at various points throughout, I'll try to help make my point clearer. Like some others in this thread, I feel that cryptocurrencies in their present state are intrinsically worthless. Your entire argument for bitcoin right now as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is a need for a digital store of value, a 'digital gold' as we call it now. I argue that in its current state, bitcoin isn't a viable store of value, primarily due to its inherent volatility and dwindling viability as a currency. Generally, we want our store of value to
retain some purchasing power in the future. If there is a future where no one uses bitcoin anymore to buy anything because the blockchain is so slow and everyone is just holding bitcoin storing their value, what's gonna happen when the buyers inevitably dry up one bear season and the house of cards comes tumbling down?
But you may say, well that's false because bitcoin is deflationary and the longterm trend is always up, therefore in the future I will have even greater purchasing power because bitcoin will be worth more compared to fiat. But here's what I can't wrap my head around. If bitcoin never becomes digital cash and is only used as a store of value that no one uses besides selling to others,
then is this purchasing power not entirely an illusion? You literally own nothing. And as much as BTC hodlers like to dig their heads in the sand and pretend otherwise...
Fees and transaction times ARE a problem
I would agree that there is some need for people to be able to store value securely and privately away from oppressive governments and the like in a completely decentralized manner. 'Banking for the unbanked' is the buzzword phrase we like here. But is bitcoin fulfilling this? The average transaction fee has been over $5 the last 2 weeks as you can see here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bit...fees.html. 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for storing my value if I'm stuck in some third-world country I guess.
And while it's clear you barely bothered to read through my post, as I don't think I could have been more clear that I was presenting a hypothetical scenario in the future where transaction fees are $100+, what's more clear is that you are the one likely exaggerating your claims about transaction fees and confirmation times. The bitinfo chart I linked above shows that the average fee has been well over $5 and nearly $15 the last couple days. You can also see here that the average confirmation time for a transaction has been over an hour the last week:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time
And you know what the best part is? You could have used any number of other chains to send your money much cheaper and much quicker. Since Metropolis, using ETH has been super smooth and quick. Have your transaction confirmed in under a minute and pay a few cents as your fee. This is the other problem that makes me wary of bitcoin as a long-term store of value. Yes, blockchain tech is revolutionary and here to stay. But if there are blockchains with better tech, that can do everything bitcoin can do as a store of value while also providing other use-cases (i.e. smart contracts, better anonymity, etc.), then what is the eventual need that bitcoin will provide down the line?
Now this issue with scaling is a crypto-wide problem, and if another blockchain were in Bitcoin's position there'd be the same issues. But even now, can you tell me, what are Core's plans to scale bitcoin? I'll preface this by saying that for the vast majority of us in crypto (myself included) we can't truly understand the complicated technical aspects behind blockchains and scaling. So we mostly have to stick to the buzz words the devs throw us. So for Bitcoin we've got Segwit and Lightning Network which I've been hearing about forever. But what after that? Now I know BTC maximalists usually just ignore PoS as another 'dangerous, unproven' aspect to ETH, but there at least there is a roadmap in place. We the investor know that the dev team sees it as a key problem and are actively working on scaling the platform. With Core? Segwit, LN, 1 MB blocks forever?? No one cares while the price is going uppity and they can hold their digital gold, but as always I'm curious to see how this plays out in the coming years.
Anyway, I do my best to not come off as a closed-minded 'know-it-all.' I have only been following bitcoin and crypto for a year and a half or so, and come to this forum to discuss crypto because I think some of the best open-minds and discussions to be had online are found on this forum. I make no pretensions about knowing the market or what will happen; hell I've pretty much been wrong about everything regarding BTC/ETH price these last 6 months. But it's hard not to see projection on your part when you close your post by saying my tone is 'inflammatory' and then shut down any further dialogue before ending with a snarky 'good luck.' So whatever man, good luck to you too I guess. At the end of the day we are all just on here sharing ideas, trying to help each other make money. I figured that sort of ego and tribalism regarding coin holdings was best left for reddit and rvf's own btc echo chamber thread.
I'll close with a simple thought experiment to hopefully sum up my point well.
Let's imagine that you are presented with only two options of a similar property for a long-term investment. You know nothing about the invesment opportunity except what the broker tells you and that you should look at this as a long-term deal.
Option A:
-oldest, slowest one, but the most liquid
-minimal adoption/use as a medium of exchange
-primary use-case is a 'store of value' that will provide great returns down the line
-however, these returns are only guaranteed if there is future demand. Thus, buyers are encouraged to hold and encourage others to buy and simply hold. Set it and forget it.
-Of course the more it rises in value the riskier it is to buy in and hold. It's easy for Chad who bought 1000 of these back when they were $300 to sit back and hold. He doesn't give a shit if this crashes because he can still get out with a huge profit. He's playing with house money
-But poor Bobby who bought the most recent ATH at 10k can't be so sure that he hasn't ruined his life. He went all-in and it's dipped 30% but everyone is saying just hold it always goes back up right...
Option B
-newer, more experimental tech. much more use cases than a simple store of value (note: it can also store value)
-less liquidity, but growing adoption in the space
-Potential returns as a store of value, but primary value lies outside this. The project intends to create value as either a digital currency, a platform for developers to create apps on, etc.
Which one looks like a decent investment and which one sounds like a Ponzi scheme? I'm holding a little BTC so I'm happy to eat crow and watch this megamoon if it does, but so much has changed in a year in the crypto world, yet the BTC scaling debate hasn't nudged. A year ago all the talk was about getting Segwit out to scale, as if that was gonna fix everything. Now, a couple forks later and there's no progress on the scaling debate, but everyone's happy cuz bitcoin's at $7k now so who gives a shit anymore it's digital gold now baby!
Meanwhile the BTC maximalists are still shouting down every ALT as a shitcoin, despite Bitcoin having already crossed the Rubicon imo in terms of marketcap dominance. You can argue that the alts were always going to make their way into the market, but BTC dropping from 85% to 50% dominance this year was absolutely a sign of failure on the Core dev team and the community as a whole to make bitcoin THE crypto coin.
I only wish I hadn't listened to all the FUD and shitcoin talk when I was first looking into ETH back in January...but that's why now I try to keep an open mind about these things.