52 karma · joined October 6, 2011
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address
Ecological concerns? A global, nacent value exchange system uses a little more than the total electricity of holiday lights. In fact many miners use cheap unused energy that would be otherwise costly to build infrastructure to sell normally.
https://icenter.co/chinese-hydroelectric-crackdown-herald-de...
Too confusing? Seems familiar. Here's a video from 1994 with some talk show hosts confused about 'internet'. Just watch this, please.
Ding ding ding! You guessed it!
The price must rise. The utility has not degraded and just looking at 'number of transactions' is not useful. Just because I can move some arbitrary number of units in a given timeframe does not mean my unit is more valuable. Banks can move way more than 600k USD transfers in a day.
How do you propose we increase throughput on a competitive space without compromising the byzantine fault tolerance of the bitcoin network?
Go on, I'll wait.
It isn't just 'make the blocks bigger'. That's like telling a developer to just ship more code. We didn't scale the early internet by making packets bigger. Open your mind and stop repeating things you read just because you read it. Think for yourself and if you are uninformed about a technology then do not open your mouth to speak. You don't reach scale and adjust a hundred billion dollar network by hacking fixes, you do it by carefully making calculated changes with science and testing behind your decisions. The developers working on bitcoin today have done more to contribute to the growth of bitcoin than detract and the sheer volume and scale are unprecedented. Nobody is equipped to say one solution is obviously better.
The fact that this is upvoted so high really shows the number of people who truly lack an understanding of an asset but are vocal in spite of that fact.
Good ol' Linus
Interesting stance to state publicly.
Ignorance creates comments like this. Bitcoin transactions are not reversible, you have zero opportunity for fraud as a buyer.