- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bitstamp Halts Withdrawls
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:20 am to JayDeerTay84
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:20 am to JayDeerTay84
quote:
Further, you keep referencing a 3rd party in relation to "being easy to use". In other words, its only easy "if" you use a 3rd party.
I have acknowledged on a great many occasions that bitcoin is not ready for prime time yet. The infrastructure needs to be built up around it. Right now bitcoin is difficult to use and requires specialized knowledge, not unlike the internet in 1993.
And the fact of the matter is that bitcoin is growing by leaps and bounds. The amount of growth in the space just in the past year has been tremendous. You're going to see it continue to grow rapidly.
2
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:23 am to WikiTiger
quote:
And the fact of the matter is that bitcoin is growing by leaps and bounds. The amount of growth in the space just in the past year has been tremendous. You're going to see it continue to grow rapidly.
Can you cite the growth of users over the last few years without referencing its price?
Do you have any valid data to suggest a growing number of users? An amount able to compete globally?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:24 am to WikiTiger
quote:You didn't explain it. You provided a link to a wikipedia article explaining it.
Most of y'all had no understanding of the concept of off-chain transactions until just 2 nights ago when I explained it.
And ironically the article you linked weakened your stance that bitcoin is safe from fraud from the off block chain transactions. It pointed out that security from double spending during off block chain transfers depends entirely on the honesty of the exchange/wallet provider and can't be verified by the "community" like regular block chain transaction can.
So in order to actually be able to use btc an owner has to rely on a third party (can you say 'bank'?) that can pilfer his bitcoins. Only when the btc owner then tries to transfer his btc back to block chain transactions can the double spending fraud be detected. And by then it's too late. Reference MtGox.
As we've seen, relying upon the integrity of any entity closely associated with bitcoin is a huge gamble. Bitcoin attracts the ethically bankrupt.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:25 am to OnTheBrink
quote:
Most businesses that accept bitcoins, immediately receive those bitcoins and convert to cash, right? I could be wrong on that. But if I am correct, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Yes, they typically convert to cash. BitPay and Coinbase both offer these services, they also give the merchant an option to keep a set percent in bitcoin as well if they so choose.
I don't believe it defeats the purpose at all. The problem is that most people think of bitcoin as a currency first. But really bitcoin is a transaction ledger with its own network. The "bitcoins" are just chits on the network that are used to track the movement of value. At its core, bitcoin is a revolutionary value transmission network. This is the true greatness of bitcoin that unfortunately gets ignored. So, a merchant can use bitcoin as a transaction network for much cheaper than the traditional transaction networks (Visa, MC, PayPal, cash, etc.)
quote:
If a business does receive bitcoin and immediately transfer it to cash, where does that bitcoin go? Back to the mining pool, or do they transfer it to someone who buys it?
BitPay and Coinbase sell those coins on various exchanges at the time of sale. So basically, it's just other people that are buying them.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:26 am to LSURussian
quote:
You didn't explain it. You provided a link to a wikipedia article explaining it.
Yes I did.
LINK
quote:quote:
what was wrong with his post and what did your link discredit?
he said: If a transfer is not entered into the ledger of all transactions, then the transfer did not occur.
and that's not true. there are more off-chain transactions than there are on-chain transactions. and they happen all day every day successfully. typically off-chain transactions rely on a trusted third party to process and account for them. on-chain settlement at a later date is possible.
some current real world examples: 2 individuals have accounts on coinbase.com. person A sends bitcoins from his coinbase address to person B's coinbase address. that transaction will not touch the blockchain. all coinbase will do is update their internal database that says person B now has (initial bitcoin amount + amount of bitcoin's sent by person A) and person A now has (initial bitcoin amount - bitcoins sent to person B).
A similar thing happens on all cryptocurrency exchanges. hypothetically person A deposits 2 bitcoins to an address assigned to them but controlled by the exchange. the exchange then sweeps any deposits to that address to a main address(es) where all coins are stored. but person A's account on the exchange says they have 2 bitcoins. person A then places an order on the exchange to buy 100 litecoins with their 2 bitcoins. person B fills that order and the internal database of the exchange then updates its records to reflect that person B now has 2 bitcoins and 100 fewer litecoins and person A now has 100 litecoins and no bitcoins. those transactions never touch the blockchain
all of those users can eventually "withdraw" their coins to another bitcoin/litecoin/etc address and then the transactions will show up on the blockchain.
poodle also said: That is an absolute necessity for Bitcoins to have any integrity of ownership.
and that's not true either. trusted third parties are in use currently and have been used for years, and will continue to be used.
he also said this: If what you claim is true then the statistics being posted with respect to Bitcoin transaction volume are meaningless and misleading. Every trade on the exchange would be reflected as two transactions. The first as a transfer from the seller to the exchange's wallet, and then a second from the exchange's wallet to the buyer.
and that may as well be gibberish because it makes no sense
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 9:27 am
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:27 am to WikiTiger
quote:
The problem is that most people think of bitcoin as a currency first.
I disagree. I think they see it as a way to speculate.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am to WikiTiger
quote:Whoa! Stop the presses!!! Hold everything!!
Right now bitcoin is difficult to use and requires specialized knowledge,
You have repeatedly posted on here that btc requires only a minimum of technical knowledge to own and use. You're said many times anyone can use btc with "5 minutes" of preparation.
Now you're saying it "requires specialized knowledge"??? WTF????
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am to WikiTiger
quote:
So, a merchant can use bitcoin as a transaction network for much cheaper than the traditional transaction networks (Visa, MC, PayPal, cash, etc.)
Much cheaper because of the low volume.... Or what data do you have to suggest that the bitcoin network could handle the amount of transactions Mastercard deals with "daily" for less.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am to WikiTiger
quote:
Most of y'all had no understanding of the concept of off-chain transactions until just 2 nights ago when I explained it.
I know this is a gotcha thread but I think most didn't realize that 3rd parties weren't using the blockchains to verify transactions. And with no auditing this is all kinds of shady just because people get very greedy.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am to LSURussian
quote:
And ironically the article you linked weakened your stance that bitcoin is safe from fraud from the off block chain transactions. It pointed out that security from double spending during off block chain transfers depends entirely on the honesty of the exchange/wallet provider and can't be verified by the "community" like regular block chain transaction can.
So in order to actually be able to use btc an owner has to rely on a third party (can you say 'bank'?) that can pilfer his bitcoins. Only when the btc owner then tries to transfer his btc back to block chain transactions can the double spending fraud be detected. And by then it's too late. Reference MtGox.
As we've seen, relying upon the integrity of any entity closely associated with bitcoin is a huge gamble. Bitcoin attracts the ethically bankrupt.
Just so everyone reading this knows, this is a perfect example of a person with a strong negative opinion on bitcoin having no clue what he's talking about. When I say you all don't understand the technology, I truly mean it. The amount of misunderstanding that most of you demonstrate is staggering, and I know you all are intelligent people, but god damn, some of you can be so dumb when it comes to this topic.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:29 am to LSURussian
quote:
You have repeatedly posted on here that btc requires only a minimum of technical knowledge to own and use. You're said many times anyone can use btc with "5 minutes" of preparation.
I do remember him saying that.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:29 am to WikiTiger
quote:In other words, Vance Crowe doesn't want to drown out his sunshine pumping message with real concerns expressed by the evil central bankers. Wonderful propaganda about what one guy predicts for the future. We are supposed to accept his predictions as gospel, but disregard the predictions of those who are not so sanguine about Bitcoins. Why are his 4 predictions any more valid than LSURussian's predictions of doom and gloom?
Our conversation spanned many areas, like how consumers will protect themselves from fraud, and what sort of illegal activities could individuals carry out in the Bitcoin system. I could go into detail about that part of the conversation, but for the most part I wanted to share what messages I hope I conveyed in the conversation.
And you are a fool if you think ignoring political aspects is realistic where money is involved. Until there is no such thing as private property, and the need for rules to protect the rights of property owners, there will be politics involved with money which is a form of property. Do you really think there is no politicking going on among those who control the Bitcoin mining operations and Bitcoin software developers?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:33 am to WikiTiger
quote:
The problem is that most people think of bitcoin as a currency first.
That's what it is right? A crypto-currency?
quote:
But really bitcoin is a transaction ledger with its own network. The "bitcoins" are just chits on the network that are used to track the movement of value. At its core, bitcoin is a revolutionary value transmission network. This is the true greatness of bitcoin that unfortunately gets ignored.
That's where I, and most of the common folk get lost.
quote:
So, a merchant can use bitcoin as a transaction network for much cheaper than the traditional transaction networks (Visa, MC, PayPal, cash, etc.)
Then why are more not doing it?
Also, the other day on the OT, a guy used a poor example, IMO, of how he used bitcoin and did it with ease. Went to gyft.com(sp?), bought an amazon gift card, then went to amazon and made his purchase. What would make the everyday consumer attracted to that?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:34 am to JayDeerTay84
quote:
Much cheaper because of the low volume.... Or what data do you have to suggest that the bitcoin network could handle the amount of transactions Mastercard deals with "daily" for less.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
The network can scale up. Whether or not transaction fees stay low or free is a function of the market. We'll just have to see what happens, won't we?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:35 am to WikiTiger
quote:
The network can scale up. Whether or not transaction fees stay low or free is a function of the market. We'll just have to see what happens, won't we?
So then you really have no grounds of saying it is any cheaper, do you....
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:35 am to Broke
quote:
I do remember him saying that.
No you don't. I have routinely talked about bitcoin being like the internet in 1993, which required specialized knowledge and expensive hardware to get on and there wasn't much there anyway.
I have in the past said that learning about properly securing purchased bitcoins should take about 2 hours or so of research for a decently intelligent internet user.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:36 am to WikiTiger
quote:I thought that was the purpose of bitcoin...to be a digital currency not issued by fiat. So if "most people think of bitcoin as a currency first" how can that be a "problem"??
most people think of bitcoin as a currency first.
Your inconsistency cracks me up.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:37 am to JayDeerTay84
quote:
So then you really have no grounds of saying it is any cheaper, do you....
It is cheaper right now. And I believe it will continue to be in the future.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:40 am to OnTheBrink
quote:
That's what it is right? A crypto-currency?
It is, but that's a very simplistic way to view it.
"Currency" is just the first application of the bitcoin network. There will be other applications that are developed on top of it as well.
Just for clarification, I refer to the bitcoin network but I also use the term protocol at times.
The bitcoin protocol is just the set of rules that must be followed in order to participate in the network. The bitcoin network is the collection of systems throughout the world that are performing the hashing and processing the transactions.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:41 am to WikiTiger
quote:
Just so everyone reading this knows, this is a perfect example of a person with a strong negative opinion on bitcoin having no clue what he's talking about. When I say you all don't understand the technology, I truly mean it. The amount of misunderstanding that most of you demonstrate is staggering, and I know you all are intelligent people, but god damn, some of you can be so dumb when it comes to this topic.
Rule #1: When wiki can't refute what's been posted, just call the poster unintelligent, uninformed or dumb.
Why don't you explain how what I wrote is incorrect (since I got that information from your link) rather than resorting to your Rule #1?
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News