Herbert2020



Offline



Activity: 1876

Merit: 1134







LegendaryActivity: 1876Merit: 1134 Re: I think the potential of BTC is over March 29, 2017, 08:46:12 AM #44 Quote from: Iranus on March 29, 2017, 08:19:15 AM I don't think that Ethereum is going to destroy Bitcoin or anything but you're just completely in denial about how Bitcoin is doing and how it will continue to do. Today, I sent a normal transaction of a fairly small amount of Bitcoin and to get it confirmed within an hour I had to pay a fee of more than 2mBTC. It's really bad,

did you see anywhere that i am denying the fact that fees have gone up? of course not, i am just as pissed as anybody else. but to say it is a problem and bitcoin is going to hell is just dumb! so you used to pay a low fee and now you are paying 30-40 cents per transaction, that is not called "a lot of trouble"



Quote from: Iranus on March 29, 2017, 08:19:15 AM and no matter how much people meaninglessly scream "shitcoin" it's not going to stop Ethereum having more than a quarter of Bitcoin's market cap, which it does.

market cap is not a valid thing to compare cryptocurrencies.



but since you like it let me explain. this is what ETH did:

they held an ICO and controlled a big chunk of then 80 million coins in their own hands. then there is no max supply for the coin so new coins are being mined nonstop, right now it is around 90 million coins. a simple calculation is 90 million * price = market cap

but the problem is the 90 million coins are not in circulation. i would be surprised if i know anything more than 10 million is open to public. which means real ETH market cap is 1/9 of what it is now.



Quote from: Iranus on March 29, 2017, 08:19:15 AM It's not just an attack on the network either. Bitcoin's transaction volume has been steadily going up with its price for a long time and its usage has just objectively reached its limit.

you are right about the usage going up but not about the attack. you need to watch the mempool a bit then you'll understand. when some entity(s) start injecting the mempool with hundreds of transaction in a couple of seconds and continue keeping the number up for days.

click on some of the transactions and look at them carefully. you can even find some topics in this board about it.



Quote from: Iranus on March 29, 2017, 08:19:15 AM I expected to look at Ethereum's transaction volume and conclude that the price rise is just a pump, but its transaction volume is about the same fraction of Bitcoin's as its market cap, which is very surprising to me. It really is getting somewhere and we need to stop shouting at people who admit that (or trying to shut them up).

i am not trying to shut anybody up, i just can't stand nonsense

with that said i am very interested to see what people say about ethereum in a year (on 2018-3-29) when the blockchain size of it is 400-500 GB and there were only a handful of nodes available making the security practically non-existant, when there has been another non-consensus-hard-fork which splits ETH to another 2 chains (3 in total) and when there is another exploit like DAO or even when another serious bug were found in the poorly written code.

or when the attackers on bitcoin decided to pay a visit to ETH blockchain did you see anywhere that i am denying the fact that fees have gone up? of course not, i am just as pissed as anybody else. but to say it is a problem and bitcoin is going to hell is just dumb! so you used to pay a low fee and now you are paying 30-40 cents per transaction, that is not called "a lot of trouble"market cap is not a valid thing to compare cryptocurrencies.but since you like it let me explain. this is what ETH did:they held an ICO and controlled a big chunk of then 80 million coins in their own hands. then there is no max supply for the coin so new coins are being mined nonstop, right now it is around 90 million coins. a simple calculation is 90 million * price = market capbut the problem is the 90 million coins are not in circulation. i would be surprised if i know anything more than 10 million is open to public. which means real ETH market cap is 1/9 of what it is now.you are right about the usage going up but not about the attack. you need to watch the mempool a bit then you'll understand. when some entity(s) start injecting the mempool with hundreds of transaction in a couple of seconds and continue keeping the number up for days.click on some of the transactions and look at them carefully. you can even find some topics in this board about it.i am not trying to shut anybody up, i just can't stand nonsensewith that said i am very interested to see what people say about ethereum in a year (on 2018-3-29) when the blockchain size of it is 400-500 GB and there were only a handful of nodes available making the security practically non-existant, when there has been another non-consensus-hard-fork which splits ETH to another 2 chains (3 in total) and when there is another exploit like DAO or even when another serious bug were found in the poorly written code.or when the attackers on bitcoin decided to pay a visit to ETH blockchain This space is for rent. Send PM with your offer.

cryp24x



Offline



Activity: 1092

Merit: 252









Sr. MemberActivity: 1092Merit: 252 Re: I think the potential of BTC is over March 29, 2017, 08:59:32 AM #45 Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 03:23:45 AM Quote from: FAFKINGS on March 29, 2017, 03:20:40 AM



Although most of the virtual currency acquired from BTC the original design, but the virtual currency would significantly more than BTC development.



The intelligence of the ETH contract, for example, the DASH of pos node development are far more than BTC



And BTC is now facing a simple Blockchain congestion problem



In the future, all kinds of virtual currencies rise, BTC will in no. 1?



Please friendly to your comments.



I said the wrong place please correct me



My English is not very good, I'm sorry

In the future，BITCCOIN Will also continue in the position of the virtual currency system Ranked first?Although most of the virtual currency acquired from BTC the original design, but the virtual currency would significantly more than BTC development.The intelligence of the ETH contract, for example, the DASH of pos node development are far more than BTCAnd BTC is now facing a simple Blockchain congestion problemIn the future, all kinds of virtual currencies rise, BTC will in no. 1?Please friendly to your comments.I said the wrong place please correct meMy English is not very good, I'm sorry

You make good points. Bitcoin still has potential because it is the first mover, but it is quickly losing ground to competitors. I feel a lot of people here are in deep denial about what is really happening, but I am still hopeful.



You make good points. Bitcoin still has potential because it is the first mover, but it is quickly losing ground to competitors. I feel a lot of people here are in deep denial about what is really happening, but I am still hopeful.

We have competent dev in Bitcoin, definitely they will come to their senses else if their only objective is to destroy Bitcoin then the doomsday cannot be stopped. I am also hopeful that this political conflict will come to an end and let Bitcoin move forward. I believe that if this two (BU and BC} come into terms no one can stop Bitcoin to continuously rule the cryptocurrency. We have competent dev in Bitcoin, definitely they will come to their senses else if their only objective is to destroy Bitcoin then the doomsday cannot be stopped. I am also hopeful that this political conflict will come to an end and let Bitcoin move forward. I believe that if this two (BU and BC} come into terms no one can stop Bitcoin to continuously rule the cryptocurrency. Y O U C ....... John McAfee Supports ....... [ ... JOIN NOW ... ]

chineseprancing



Offline



Activity: 630

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 630Merit: 500 Re: I think the potential of BTC is over March 29, 2017, 09:08:10 AM #48 If you are investor you need to continue that bitcoin will gives us profit, the potential of bitcoin is never lost mean it. More people give negative speculation for the biggest dump of bitcoin and if your faith in bitcoin is weak i think you will be do panic selling of your investment which is not good for the investor.

FAFKINGS



Offline



Activity: 14

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 14Merit: 0 Re: I think the potential of BTC is over March 29, 2017, 10:04:20 AM #50 Quote from: bitbunnny on March 29, 2017, 09:14:27 AM Why so many black thoughts and predictions on Bitcoin lately? Because of price dump? It's not the end of the world and Bitcoin if there are some issues appearing. Bitcoin still has a lot potential that is unexplored and that needs to be used in right way. Don't give up on Bitcoin people!

No, no, I or most people did not mean to discredit BTC, only on BTC encounter bottlenecks, feel trouble, even if the BTC have the best team in the world, but they still didn't change the BTC No, no, I or most people did not mean to discredit BTC, only on BTC encounter bottlenecks, feel trouble, even if the BTC have the best team in the world, but they still didn't change the BTC

FAFKINGS



Offline



Activity: 14

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 14Merit: 0 Re: I think the potential of BTC is over March 29, 2017, 10:11:37 AM #53 Quote from: chineseprancing on March 29, 2017, 09:08:10 AM If you are investor you need to continue that bitcoin will gives us profit, the potential of bitcoin is never lost mean it. More people give negative speculation for the biggest dump of bitcoin and if your faith in bitcoin is weak i think you will be do panic selling of your investment which is not good for the investor.

I still support the BTC, my concern is BTC in Blockchain bottleneck problem, rather than on the investment, although there are direct relationship between the two. I still support the BTC, my concern is BTC in Blockchain bottleneck problem, rather than on the investment, although there are direct relationship between the two.

paul gatt



Offline



Activity: 896

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 896Merit: 500 Re: I think the potential of BTC is over March 29, 2017, 11:37:01 AM #57 The BTC has great potential, it has grown tremendously and achieved tremendous achievements, what it has achieved no other currency can repeat. It is the pioneer and the leader of all. No matter what happens, it will never collapse. Perhaps it is experiencing problems, but I believe we can solve it, an experienced king like bitcoin always knows how to overcome difficulties. Other currencies can grow and grow, because its technology is superior, but it can not replace bitcoin. I'm sure about that.

Alex.BTC



Offline



Activity: 42

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 42Merit: 0 Re: I think the potential of BTC is over March 29, 2017, 11:39:53 AM

Last edit: March 29, 2017, 02:07:06 PM by Alex.BTC #58 Quote from: Herbert2020 on March 29, 2017, 04:42:47 AM the only problem that bitcoin is facing is the spam attack and nothing else.



The 1MB limit IS causing the spam problem, and Blockstream/Core continue to do nothing about it.



Today Bitcoin tx traffic have already reached 1MB every 10mins, since the blocksize limit is also 1MB and you only get 1 block every 10mins on average, spammers can now easily flood the mempool by generating a small amount of tx.



Once the mempool is flooded, tx takes longer to process, users get impatient, they pay more fees, fees go up, miners process higher fee tx first, all the minimum fee spam stay stuck at the bottom of the mempool, they timeout and get deleted before being processed by miners.



If spammers don't set a minimum fee in their spam, the spam will be dropped by nodes before reaching the mempool, but spammer only pay the fee when the tx is actually processed by miners.



So, once the mempool is full and the fee is high, spammer's spam never get processed, spammer can continue to flood the mempool for days paying zero fee.



Blockstream refused to increase the blocksize, so we get huge 50000tx mempool backlog today, because spammers don't have to pay their fees.



If they increase the blocksize, then for every 1MB blocksize increase, we can fit another 2000 tx per block, at 4MB we can fit 8000tx per block.



If normal traffic is 1M and the limit is 4M, spammer have to pay a very high combined min fee to flood a block (min fee x 8000 per block), then, if they continue to spam, any mishap, such as miners get lucky and mine a few blocks quickly within 10 minutes, 'eating' all the spam, then spammers have to pay the fee for almost the entire 4MB spam block.



At 4MB, it'll be too costly for spammers to spam, until normal traffic reaches 4MB and they can flood without paying fee again.



If we increase the blocksize from 1MB to 2MB or 4MB now, it will give room for Bitcoin to grow as well as reduce spam.



This truth is so simple that's why Blockstream/Core have to create all kinds of red herrings/bullshit excuses/censorships/trolls to justify keeping the blocksize at 1MB. If they stop distracting you from the actual and simple problem for just 1 second, you'll immediately find out they've been lying their asses off for years.



The 1MB limit was added in 2010 because tx fee was 0 at the time, the network was young and was growing slowly, average block size was less than 1k, and Satoshi didn't want to see the blockchain full of 32MB blocks filled with 0 fee spam.



You keep hearing all these fuck face morons talking about how SW/LN will save the day, or that we can't keep increasing the blocksize forever, but at this moment Bitcoin isn't even popular enough for SW/LN, the safety limit is above 4MB, we shouldn't even talk about side chains until we have enough tx to fill 4MB blocks every 10 minutes, or 13tx/sec (we are only at 3tx/sec at the moment).



We are having a tx jam right now, so by not increasing the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core either have absolutely no idea what they're doing, or they're just pricks blatantly lying their asses off. The 1MB limit IS causing the spam problem, and Blockstream/Core continue to do nothing about it.Today Bitcoin tx traffic have already reached 1MB every 10mins, since the blocksize limit is also 1MB and you only get 1 block every 10mins on average, spammers can now easily flood the mempool by generating a small amount of tx.Once the mempool is flooded, tx takes longer to process, users get impatient, they pay more fees, fees go up, miners process higher fee tx first, all the minimum fee spam stay stuck at the bottom of the mempool, they timeout and get deleted before being processed by miners.If spammers don't set a minimum fee in their spam, the spam will be dropped by nodes before reaching the mempool, but spammer only pay the fee when the tx is actually processed by miners.So, once the mempool is full and the fee is high, spammer's spam never get processed, spammer can continue to flood the mempool for days paying zero fee.Blockstream refused to increase the blocksize, so we get huge 50000tx mempool backlog today, because spammers don't have to pay their fees.If they increase the blocksize, then for every 1MB blocksize increase, we can fit another 2000 tx per block, at 4MB we can fit 8000tx per block.If normal traffic is 1M and the limit is 4M, spammer have to pay a very high combined min fee to flood a block (min fee x 8000 per block), then, if they continue to spam, any mishap, such as miners get lucky and mine a few blocks quickly within 10 minutes, 'eating' all the spam, then spammers have to pay the fee for almost the entire 4MB spam block.At 4MB, it'll be too costly for spammers to spam, until normal traffic reaches 4MB and they can flood without paying fee again.If we increase the blocksize from 1MB to 2MB or 4MB now, it will give room for Bitcoin to grow as well as reduce spam.This truth is so simple that's why Blockstream/Core have to create all kinds of red herrings/bullshit excuses/censorships/trolls to justify keeping the blocksize at 1MB. If they stop distracting you from the actual and simple problem for just 1 second, you'll immediately find out they've been lying their asses off for years.The 1MB limit was added in 2010 because tx fee was 0 at the time, the network was young and was growing slowly, average block size was less than 1k, and Satoshi didn't want to see the blockchain full of 32MB blocks filled with 0 fee spam.You keep hearing all these fuck face morons talking about how SW/LN will save the day, or that we can't keep increasing the blocksize forever, but at this moment Bitcoin isn't even popular enough for SW/LN, the safety limit is above 4MB, we shouldn't even talk about side chains until we have enough tx to fill 4MB blocks every 10 minutes, or 13tx/sec (we are only at 3tx/sec at the moment).We are having a tx jam right now, so by not increasing the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core either have absolutely no idea what they're doing, or they're just pricks blatantly lying their asses off.