Hacker News Reader

Comment by dk8996 | Hacker News Reader

I am with you on this one. BTC is supposed to solve the problems current systems have, the key ones being; high tx fees and slow tx.

View on HN

Why does Bitcoin have to solve those problems? Is it completely failed even if it doesn't provide fast and cheap transactions? What if it turns out that Bitcoin has a unique role to play as the first PoW blockchain and the only successful blockchain with an anonymous, nearly legendary creation narrative? Gold is slower to transport than bank notes, but it's still uniquely valuable.

I think the future for cryptos is bright but Bitcoin, and other coins, have some issues. I'm also happy for the miners since you'r happy paying 5k$ for a single digital transaction.

BTC solves the problem of preventing double-spending without a trusted central ledger.

Maybe the paper didn't address this but it sure is all over bitcoing.org.

"As these services are based on Bitcoin, they can be offered for much lower fees than with PayPal or credit card networks."

https://bitcoin.org/en/faq

From that same paragraph: "There is no fee to receive bitcoins, and many wallets let you control how large a fee to pay when spending. Higher fees can encourage faster confirmation of your transactions." The more you're willing to pay in fees, the faster your transaction is likely to get processed. That's what it says.

It was never intended to solve that. As described by the bitcoin paper, it solves the problem of decentralized cryptocurrency which is minting and preventing double-spending without a central authority.

But 'not having a central authority' is only valuable if the alternative solves the problems that having a central authority causes. The main problems I have heard articulated about a central authority is that they have high costs, are slow, and can block transactions or withold funds with no recourse. Bitcoin doesn't solve the first two issues; does it really solve the third, either? Maybe, but there are also a host of NEW issues that it brings up, too.

On the contrary, centrally authorized systems can be extremely fast and cheap. Postgres outperforms any blockchain. The issues are about authority and power, and also the barriers to innovation and access which that power imposes.

Payment channels can solve scaling issues in blockchains just like various settlement layers solve the slowness of bank transfers. Some people don't want such a solution, but it's still a solution.

Development doesn't happen the way we want. Some people want cryptocurrencies to stop existing, which seems unlikely. Bitcoin's development is really thorny because of diverse interests and general incentivized hostility; that's just reality.

Maybe a faster blockchain will gradually take Bitcoin's market share. Maybe Bitcoin will remain quite valuable. If you know a certain answer to this, there are large profit opportunities!

Maybe the paper didn't address this but it sure is all over bitcoing.org. "As these services are based on Bitcoin, they can be offered for much lower fees than with PayPal or credit card networks." https://bitcoin.org/en/faq

Reply on news.ycombinator.com