BITCOIN

Zola.

No theres lots I care about / disagree with. I just don't care to reply to it all.  I cherry picked that one for you to humour me. 

The fact you say Ethereum shows that you don't have clue what you are talking about. Explain your rationale on your Ethereum claim please. Last time I checked Ethereum was a complete centralised disaster, ran by VC bros and has no auditing ability etc. Keen to hear why you think it or its technology has superseded bitcoin. You do know it's also ran on POW yeah?  That terribly wasteful technology that you are so against?

Additionally, the fact you think technology is one of the most important part of bitcoin, also shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. 

bugbyte_2

Even if you believe Bitcoin is the most wonderful thing that has ever happened, the proof of work vs proof of stake argument would indicate that there are problems with BTC and (flawed?) solutions to its vast energy consumption, so yes, as a first go at *something* Bitcoin did rather well but its inception and operational issues have been addressed with other newer technologies. This of course cannot be admitted by BTC holders as it kind of makes BTC pointless. Not that there is a definable point anyway.

Zola.

Wrong.

It just indicates someone trying something else... Why? Because copy cat / cloned coins like Litecoin have little impact or adoption... 

Proof of Work secures the network. It is a required security feature to ensure decentralisatuon without interference. Not a bug. 

https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM

Proof of stake is about centralisation and control from the creators. It only benefits those  those with huge premined bags and allows them to control the network.

https://medium.com/@BobMcElrath/whats-wrong-with-proof-of-stake-77d4f370be15

Flavour of the month coins like Solana who are supposed to be the next best thing continually fall over and go offline. Ethereum creators have to hard fork when they screw up transactions. 

Bitcoin has been making blocks consistently roughly every 10 mins since Jan 2009 without issue. 

It is simply in a league of its own. 

Aegis

Zola. said:

No theres lots I care about / disagree with. I just don't care to reply to it all.  I cherry picked that one for you to humour me. 

The fact you say Ethereum shows that you don't have clue what you are talking about. Explain your rationale on your Ethereum claim please. Last time I checked Ethereum was a complete centralised disaster, ran by VC bros and has no auditing ability etc. Keen to hear why you think it or its technology has superseded bitcoin. You do know it's also ran on POW yeah?  That terribly wasteful technology that you are so against?

Additionally, the fact you think technology is one of the most important part of bitcoin, also shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Well awesome, since I "have no idea what I'm talking about" as you took pains to mention twice, I won't bother to provide you with any further answers.  Try being a decent communicator in future if you actually want responses.

Zola.

😂😂
Typical - always when pressed after you make these type of claims (bitcoin being superseded), you never back it up with anything when asked... and just deflect.

Aegis

Zola. said:

😂😂
Typical - always when pressed after you make these type of claims (bitcoin being superseded), you never back it up with anything when asked... and just deflect.

Typical - you prefer to mock rather than actually address highlighted issues and to insult rather than actually engage like an adult.

Ignored...

Frequentlyhere

It would be interesting to see a response to what I saw as a systemic dismemberment of that article from @Aegis .

I read that article too. It's pretty much a top 10 articulation of incredibly weak arguments for it.

One of my favourites is this bit:

"In the future it is very likely that crypto currency wallets in some form could supplant bank accounts as we know them today. New tools will be developed that can do everything that banks can do but also will be able to do new things that we can’t even imagine today. Why send an ACH money transfer that will take 5–7 days when you can send money over the Blockchain in just minutes. Not only does this technology threaten banks, but also all of the trusted intermediaries that deal with money transfers are no longer needed"

I mean, just think. One day in the bright bright future, if they develop those tools they've had 13 years to work on, we might be able to accelerate the faster payments process we can do in about 30 seconds now typically to 'just minutes'.

And on the rare occasions that we need to send money abroad, we'll 'simply' be able to convert all of our £ to BTC, initiate a BTC transfer, and then another person can transfer all of that BTC back to their own currency. Which may cost probably 5-10x more in effort and expense than the many available ways to do this already, but could theoretically arrive sooner, which is almost always not at all in the slightest bit important. Be still my beating heart.

Plus...plus! We won't need any of those irritating fraud or safety mechanisms that banks have, and will thankfully be able to freely once again send money to entirely the wrong account by getting one digit wrong or be defrauded without recompense. But don't worry, there will be a public decentralised record that we have done so. Praise be!

Aegis

Frequentlyhere said:

It would be interesting to see a response to what I saw as a systemic dismemberment of that article from @Aegis .

I read that article too. It's pretty much a top 10 articulation of incredibly weak arguments for it.

One of my favourites is this bit:

"In the future it is very likely that crypto currency wallets in some form could supplant bank accounts as we know them today. New tools will be developed that can do everything that banks can do but also will be able to do new things that we can’t even imagine today. Why send an ACH money transfer that will take 5–7 days when you can send money over the Blockchain in just minutes. Not only does this technology threaten banks, but also all of the trusted intermediaries that deal with money transfers are no longer needed"

I mean, just think. One day in the bright bright future, if they develop those tools they've had 13 years to work on, we might be able to accelerate the faster payments process we can do in about 30 seconds now typically to 'just minutes'.

And on the rare occasions that we need to send money abroad, we'll 'simply' be able to convert all of our £ to BTC, initiate a BTC transfer, and then another person can transfer all of that BTC back to their own currency. Which may cost probably 5-10x more in effort and expense than the many available ways to do this already, but could theoretically arrive sooner, which is almost always not at all in the slightest bit important. Be still my beating heart.

Plus...plus! We won't need any of those irritating fraud or safety mechanisms that banks have, and will thankfully be able to freely once again send money to entirely the wrong account by getting one digit wrong or be defrauded without recompense. But don't worry, there will be a public decentralised record that we have done so. Praise be!

I can't even remember the last time I sent a payment that didn't slot nicely into the Faster Payments remit and therefore arrive same day, usually within minutes.  I guess if I was regularly sending large payments overseas, the transit time for current payments might still be days, but I know that when I worked for HSBC is was possible to do instant transfers to foreign currency accounts in your own name, so it's likely that there's already a range of solutions that doesn't require blockchain.  Otherwise the majority of payments I make are on credit card to get the points and the section 75 protection, and the transaction happens immediately with settlement usually over the next month or so.  Again, I don't really see a problem here that needs a solution.

bugbyte_2

Zola. said:

Wrong.

Am I though?

Bitcoin can process between 3.3 and 7 transactions per second and to do this it uses approximately the same amount of energy as Argentina.

It uses that amount of energy to deter any attack on the system hence the correct statement "Proof of Work secures the network. It is a required security feature to ensure decentralisatuon without interference. Not a bug. "

If you can read those two sentences and still not see the massive Argentina sized issue here then I suspect there is no hope for you. 

Zola.

Yes - you are wrong. 

Bitcoin is a very simple protocol (like TCP/IP), on which layers are built. These days, everyday, small transactions probably shouldn't be conducted on the base layer, unless you want to wait about 10 minutes for it to settle. 

The Bitcoin Lightning Network is capable of processing 1,000,000 transactions per second

The absurd claims comparing a single transaction's energy usage to Argentina (or insert another nation state), is frankly so laughable, inaccurate and misconstrued, that it's not even worth discussing. Links have been provided many times before on this. Yet the same nonsense keeps getting spouted by parrots who only read mainstream media headlines and cant do their own due diligence. If you cant do this then I suspect there is no hope for you.

Heres a helping hand
https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actually-consume