Looking for my (contrarian) Tribe

[Alfred_Arnold]

All this fighting is just breaking my heart.....

Bitcoin liberates us from the Western Union line. It also helps us not need to hone our gold forgery identification. It also lets us trust encryption over corruption and is at least few steps away from real-identity surveillance. It isn't liked by everyone even though it is realistically for everyone, but 13 years later if it's still a scam, I don't know what to tell you; it's a good thing other alternatives exist. @lunar , @Reply Guy , and @Quilombo make good points.

Old CPU mined bitcoin won't face the cara-chica problem at least..or humidity. Lugging around a plot of land or backpack of silver is a bit of a problem too. If someone wants 20% of their savings portfolio in it..well..what's the problem? I see none. Tangible Pokemon cards or constantly insulted artwork detested by the modern humanities professors may not get a leg up on the intangible, portable, finite, largely decentralized bitcoin that even state actors and mega corporations are "betting" on.

To speak for @Quilombo 's "Technolibertarian dudebros," it does have intrinsic value: as a universal networking service. A few cryptocurrencies are at least as valuable as VOIP and Tor and VPNs and LInux distros for humanity.

 

[FrankPintor]

When you play poker before the game you have table, cards, chips and some people with money. After the game you have the same table, the same cards and chips and people with money distributed in a different way (and some money that went to the house). This is gambling. No new value is created.

In case of the bitcoin, at the beginning there was nothing. And now there is something that can potentially replace such valuable companies as JPMorgan, Western Union and Visa with necessary infrastructure and processes in place. And it works (well, there is always place for improvement). There is a value in all this. It is just not attributed to a corporation.

At least you're arguing something other than semantics now, though your conclusion that "there is value in all this" is disputable. And then you mention Visa, let's make an example with Visa, and look at this:

"So, why is scalability an issue for blockchain? Take the example of Bitcoin for finding the ideal answer. It processes almost 7 transactions every second while Visa processes almost 1700 transactions every second on average. You can clearly see the difference in performance between Visa and blockchain-based technology. On the other hand, you also have to deal with the problem of deploying new technology. Therefore, the unresolved concerns of scalability on an architectural level create difficulties in the adoption of blockchain and its practical applications". The problem even has its own Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem

Just google "bitcoin scalability problem" and see what you find. You also mention Bitcoin Lightning, which tries to solve Bitcoin's problems by... ummm... not using the blockchain. Right... see also https://www.investopedia.com/tech/bitcoin-lightning-network-problems/ maybe it was also written by a jailed former Ethereum developer, the blockchain space is obviously inhabited by some choice characters.

As the Reply Guy says, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but if you come evangelizing and namedropping, expect pushback.

 

[lunar]

"So, why is scalability an issue for blockchain? ... You also mention Bitcoin Lightning, which tries to solve Bitcoin's problems by... ummm... not using the blockchain.

Yeah, why not? Different tools for different purposes. What is important that scalability issues are resolved now.
It is an elegant implementation of speedy transactions layer with eventual consistency.

It is about the same story with the regular databases. Stability/persistence vs speed. Both things can not be achieved using a single approach.

 

[toongeorges]

"So, why is scalability an issue for blockchain? Take the example of Bitcoin for finding the ideal answer. It processes almost 7 transactions every second while Visa processes almost 1700 transactions every second on average.

Scalability is one of the big issues with blockchain. Ethereum processes about 30 transactions per second, but the upcoming version of Ethereum is projected to process around 100000 transactions per second, so this will be more than 50 times what Visa does.

 

[FrankPintor]

Yeah, why not? Different tools for different purposes. What is important that scalability issues are resolved now.
It is an elegant implementation of speedy transactions layer with eventual consistency.

It is about the same story with the regular databases. Stability/persistence vs speed. Both things can not be achieved using a single approach.

I don't think you even looked at the article from Investopedia that I quoted in my post. It goes into some depth to explain the problems with Lightning, one in particular strikes me as a dealbreaker: you need to open and close transaction channels on the blockchain, so while the transaction you want to make will be fast, you're still limited to the 7 transactions per second to open and close the channel. I'm trying to think what applications would suit this model, certainly not anything I do like pay my Netflix and mobile phone bills, unless I want an open transaction channel for several months at a time.

The article does point out, of course, that moving transactions off the blockchain negates the overhyped advantages of the technology such as privacy and fraud protection. So there's that too.

 

[FrankPintor]

Scalability is one of the big issues with blockchain. Ethereum processes about 30 transactions per second, but the upcoming version of Ethereum is projected to process around 100000 transactions per second, so this will be more than 50 times what Visa does.

Sure, there are interesting developments out there. Ethereum may well eat Bitcoin's lunch, especially since it seems to be more advanced with regard to changing to proof of stake, but it's all projections, it's in development, it's not ready for use.

The best thing would be to start with a clean slate again with all the knowledge we've gained about how the technology works in real life, and what the demands will be. There's no way it should have become a half-baked multi billion Dollar monster with no intrinsic value, with its pricing vulnerable to Tweets (it's only because it has no intrinsic value that the price can be moved in this way, right?).

And no, transaction networks, nodes, channels, are not of value to Bitcoin, they're costs. When you buy Bitcoin you don't own part of the networks and nodes, you own a token.

 

[lunar]

... you're still limited to the 7 transactions per second to open and close the channel. I'm trying to think what applications would suit this model, certainly not anything I do like pay my Netflix ...

You don't understand how it works. You don't need to open a new channel on each and every transaction.