New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
If I remember correctly, the original (publicly marketed) premise of Ripple was 'local economy' peer-to-peer money, kind of in the same vein as LETS and such. But they've pivoted a few times since.
That's because there's simply less demand (for high-speed transactions) and congestion on the Ethereum network, not because the economics of Ethereum are somehow fundamentally different. The fees that people pay aren't set by the network, they're set by the market - people pay more than other people to jump the queue faster, and therefore the fees will be whatever people are willing to pay to have their transactions go through.
If all Bitcoin transactions turned into Ethereum transactions overnight, you'd be paying the same (or more) for your Ethereum transactions as you're doing now for your Bitcoin transactions. The economics are exactly the same, and don't really have anything to do with the underlying technology.
That seems like a very US-centric viewpoint. I already get effectively free transfers to anybody within SEPA from my bank, taking anywhere from 'instant' to 1 working day depending on the bank (and more and more banks are implementing instant transactions).
No, it's not. IOTA is a pile of hyped-up bullshit, peddled to people who don't understand decentralized systems. Which turns out to be a very profitable approach for those doing the peddling.
Demand for Bitcoin transactions currently significantly exceeds the space in each block according to Bitcoin Core's built-in blocksize limit. Therefore, massive backlog, therefore, if you don't pay a high fee to jump the queue your transaction is going to be stuck until the backlog is gone (if that ever happens).
This is not a technical limitation - it's a political decision to refuse to increase the blocksize. It only takes changing one constant in the software to make the backlog go away.
Oooook.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what the technical properties are of IOTA that make it a better option for a trustless decentralized payment network than Bitcoin, then? In particular, you'll probably want to explain how it is that the centralized node that the IOTA team are operating doesn't interfere with the trustlessly decentralized nature of the network.
Not interested; not one IOTA.
No. Please, no. I am not going to try to explain the temporary IOTA coordinator.
You are right, it's all a "a pile of hyped-up bullshit, peddled to people who don't understand decentralized systems. Which turns out to be a very profitable approach for those doing the peddling".
It's enough with that.
You should be ashamed.
What? I can't do puns now?
@WSS Sure you can. I love me some puns. But that was embarassing.
Today's German lesson: fremdschämen.
Aaaand here we see the typical response of an IOTA proponent when challenged on technical grounds; vague non-technical non-answers, rhetoric, hint-y answers that never actually make a point. I have yet to see a single IOTA proponent that's capable of making a technical case for it; even the founder of IOTA resorts to personal attacks when faced with technical criticism!
Personal attacks and evasive/defensive answers are a very reliable indicator for poorly-designed systems. We've seen that right here on LET many times in the past, with various control panels and other services that inevitably ended up failing, and it pretty much always holds true. If you genuinely have a technology that works as advertised, then you don't need all the rhetoric and personal attacks - you can just make a technical counterpoint.
The fact that IOTA proponents and developers alike routinely fail to do so, says a lot about the validity of the project. Which is to say: it's hype, peddled to people who don't understand decentralized systems (and therefore have no technical arguments). And that's precisely who its proponents are.
Huh. Schadenfreude, but on a personal level. Thanks for this. Just you wait, it'll get a like! All I'd have to do is tag @Cam or @vmhaus and it'd get a like..
That'd be "plaatsvervangende schaamte" in Dutch.
@joepie91 shouldnt I be able to use "lekker" instead? I seem to be able to use it for everything else.
Oh my dog, I just said you are right.
I think you said first the words "pile of hyped-up bullshit", an example of technical arguments.
I am out of this game.
I don't think plaatsvervangende schaamte is very tasty.
You started out by claiming that IOTA is "the answer". I'm asking you to support that statement. Failure to do so, including in your original post, is indeed going to result in me calling it "hyped-up bullshit" - especially since this is a recurring theme in talking to IOTA proponents.
Neither are clothes or a lot of other random stuff, but dutch people still use lekker to describe them from time to time.
@joepie91, do you find any of the current crypto solutions a good solution? If so, would be nice to hear your thoughts on which and why.
I'm going to assume that you're referring to 'cryptocurrency', rather than the established meaning of 'crypto' (namely, cryptography) which the term 'cryptocurrency' is derived from...
I'd say that there are no truly good solutions yet. Bitcoin is probably the closest to a sensible approach, but has its own share of problems, in particular the ever-growing nature of the transaction log and the cost of PoW (which, although that's what provides the network security, is a problem from an environmental perspective).
However, every single 'alternative' I've seen is worse in some way. Many of them don't even implement the same thing as Bitcoin, many others are just outright broken in some way that's hilariously obvious to an experienced decentralized systems developer. I went into that a little more in an earlier post in this thread.
It's not likely that there's going to be a better replacement for Bitcoin any time soon, either. Once there is, it probably won't be VC-funded. Venture capitalists are more interested in monetization than in building robust decentralized systems, especially since the latter is rarely monetizable at all.
So, for now, we're stuck with Bitcoin, really. The fastest way to get to something better, is to dive deep into the technical problems with it, and to read up on the past several decades in decentralization research. Not really the answer that most people want to hear, but it's the answer nevertheless.
What certainly won't help towards that end is people muddying the waters by shouting about their favourite glossy-marketing altcoin being the new revolution, although that seems to be the favourite activity-du-jour of many people. It's actually less bad here on LET than in many other places, it seems.
EDIT: I'm not considering things like Bitcoin Cash in the above. It's really nothing more than Bitcoin, but with a differently configured constant. I'm only considering the underlying technical tradeoffs and design goals here.
@joepie91, what about the likes of Monero with its adaptive block size? Seems to be the primary concern you have with Bitcoin.
There is a way. A bit complicated, but still doable.
Looks like Karen sorted it out
Not sure how I unchecked BCH, it was one of the primary ones I wanted to accept.
Francisco
Too much whisky.
BTC is going down hill and fast, It's a good time to look into investing with alt coins especially ETH.
Who do you use for processing you don’t mind sharing?
I agree, good service!
If altcoins will be accepted as a payment by providers. If yes, when? Bitcoin isn't good now but how many providers accept altcoins?
Investing to profit? May be.
The blocksize is a bit of a red herring. When it comes down to it, it will have the same problem no matter what the blocksize is or how it's determined; you have X transactions, taking up Y space, and the bigger Y is the more expensive it will be to run a node. Therefore, you need to either limit X or deal with a large Y.
The real problem here is that a ledger with perpetually-persisted transactions will inevitably grow big because the amount of transactions will always increase, never decrease. Pruning strategies are possible, but have so far been mostly left unexplored, and it seems that the economic incentives in most (all?) cryptocurrencies aren't aligned in such a way that users are incentivized to create easily-prunable transactions (eg. using up small inputs before large ones).