That was the point, according to the original Bitcoin paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
It's just not reality for today's Bitcoin. We'll need better scaling in production to make it reality, either on Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
It's just not reality for today's Bitcoin. We'll need better scaling in production to make it reality, either on Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
Edited to provide additional information:
- low fees ($0.01) to have your transaction confirmed in next block
- zero confirmation transactions safe for most users
- same pre-fork ledger
- businesses are starting to integrate with the technology because it's usable again (e.g. yours.org)
Even satoshi(before you try to cite him) himself said off chain might be needed.
Doge coin is still going even though the creator did it as a joke.
Bitcoin cash has by forking from bitcoin itself also guaranteed it would have users as it gave everyone who had bitcoin some bitcoin cash. It's a clone of bitcoin with the brakes removed.
For me, it would be its value plummeting to near-zero. If no one values it or uses it for anything, I'll be convinced it was a scam. Now, your turn.
It was designed to avoid a fix that would prevent the use of asicboost.
You're goalpost of a zero or near zero value is bad. Even fake art can be sold.
Also, I'm happy to pay a (reasonable) fee to miners to compensate them for the resources they spend in keeping the network secure for me.
I have kind of mixed feelings about removing ASIC boost. I do feel it is everyones right to innovate and get an advantage, then patent that advantage. It takes money to do that R&D, so it should be protected. Others can do so as well, or operate from countries where these patents are not respected. On the other hand, others have so far been unable to get their own advantages, so maybe it is time to hardfork (yes, hardfork, SegWit does not fix it, not until > 90% of transactions are using SegWit) to prevent getting this advantage.
Actually... I like that, just phrased a little different - Bitcoin Cash - it's bitcoin with the parking break disengaged!
... if you have to result to namecalling, you'll probably a shill.
There's an anti-miner narrative that bitcoin core is selling, but in the end, the market will decide.
As for developers removing the malleability fix (SegWit) to break the LN, that is just a plain lie. First, SegWit was removed because it is just an hack that can be achieved in much better ways. SegWit is such technical debt because it did in a soft fork what should have been done in a hard fork. Second, you can see on the development mailing list that fixing it has been discussed well, and a fix for third party malleability is actually already active. You can also see that nobody is against 2nd layer systems like Lightning Network, and it will be supported if and when it is actually useful.
The EDA that was in place in the first 3 months was indeed a big mistake and has since been replaced with a well performing fast acting DAA, but it is not the reason people push for 0-conf. 0-conf was a pretty well used and working feature of BTC before the blocks first became full. It is only logical to use it again on a chain that does not intend to let its blocks become full.
There's always going to be niche markets for people who can't use fiat currencies for one reason or another (international commerce, failed states, black markets, etc.), and there's probably going to be some number of hobbyists who want to transact in crypto as a political or technical end in itself.
But why would the median consumer possibly want to migrate to a world where their real net worth could halve or double literally overnight, repeatedly, at any time, for reasons they can neither predict nor control?
3rd gen tech is here, with instant transactions and 0 fees. Look at RaiBlocks and IOTA, these things make microtransactions a reality.
I passed funds with RaiBlocks the other day, fast as hell, 0 fees. Try to beat that.
IOTA has an absolutely unprofessional development team, doing things like saying critical security vulnerabilities are there on purpose so they can point it out when someone forks or saying that the network being unusable due to a DOS attack is fine because they can use it for testing. Don't forget the time they turned off the network for 2 days without any prior notice (yes, they can do that). I'm all for new technology, but Bitcoin is 9 year old proven technology at this point, while IOTA and RaiBlocks are both new and unproven. Let them mature a bit before suggesting people rely on them. Would be quite bad if someone turned off IOTA when you need your money, wouldn't it?
I agree with you that bitcoin derivatives (with blockchain) have proven themselves with a robust security implementation. But if you look at adoption, none of the cryptocurrencies really proved itself. Bitcoin was even dropped by some (such as Steam). And with the high transaction fees, you couldn't really blame them, it just makes no sense.
I also agree with you that RaiBlocks hasn't proved itself yet in security and scaling. But in my opinion, instant and free transactions is a total game changer. If these technologies are able to stand, it's a total game changer for all cryptocurrencies that focus on fast transactions and low fees. That includes Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin.
As for IOTA, I consider that tech in alpha stage. They are not trying hard to make it usable, but it seems they are putting all their focus on trying to build up a standard for the industry. All the partnerships and relations they have going on make sense. Is it usable for end users? No. But RaiBlocks is. And instant feeless transactions indeed could have nice synergy with IOT.
These are definitely interesting times. But I wish more focus would be put on applications and use cases than on the market cap of each coin.