Half of it, the dude talks slow. Anyway I watched enough for it to be obvious he's making the point that BTC with LN could be used by banks to increase speed and lower cost in their transactions. Which is exactly what Ripple is already doing. Watched some more of it. So he's making the point that this would defeat the purpose of BTC. Brings me back to a post I made about the LN earlier:
I don't understand how any abstraction layer on top of BTC would solve the speed and cost issues? The miners are still going to have to be the ones to process transactions and they need paid? Unless you're moving transactions off the blockchain but if you do that you've changed the whole thing. That's not simply an "abstraction layer". Intuitively there should be some significant downsides that this article is failing to mention.
There's your "downside", I guess. I think there will be disagreement in the BTC community, as usual, about whether this is actually a downside.
The point was the LN will naturally give rise to routing hubs which centralize the network and will end up being controlled by the banks in the end, not that it's a service for banks to reduce transacation speed and cost. His point was also that this is an effect of the Bitcoin development getting hijacked by people with malicious intentions. Seems like the Bitcoin forks may actually have been purposeful. I think it is time for me to actually read the Bitcoin whitepaper and try to fully understand it.
Right but it's not as simple as the dude says. There are valid arguments against increasing block size. But of course you prefer to look at it as a giant conspiracy.. Let me guess, the Jews are doing it. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
Goodspeed wrote:If tinfoil hat non sense like that is what's preventing you from investing in a cryptocurrency with a real use case I feel bad for you. Banks aren't going anywhere. Inter-bank transfers are a multi-trillion dollar market, and Ripple aims to improve both transaction speed and cost in that market. It does this very well. Yes it's a very different thing than Bitcoin, with entirely different goals. But the fact that it is working with regulators rather than against them actually makes me more excited for it. I just don't see widespread adoption happening for coins that are working against banks and governments. Not anytime soon anyway.
Kind of like how the space of five pages in an ESOC thread was preventing you from knowing anything (let alone everything) about economics and cryptocurrencies.
Goodspeed wrote:Right but it's not as simple as the dude says. There are valid arguments against increasing block size. But of course you prefer to look at it as a giant conspiracy.. Let me guess, the Jews are doing it. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
Goodspeed wrote:If tinfoil hat non sense like that is what's preventing you from investing in a cryptocurrency with a real use case I feel bad for you. Banks aren't going anywhere. Inter-bank transfers are a multi-trillion dollar market, and Ripple aims to improve both transaction speed and cost in that market. It does this very well. Yes it's a very different thing than Bitcoin, with entirely different goals. But the fact that it is working with regulators rather than against them actually makes me more excited for it. I just don't see widespread adoption happening for coins that are working against banks and governments. Not anytime soon anyway.
Kind of like how the space of five pages in an ESOC thread was preventing you from knowing anything (let alone everything) about economics and cryptocurrencies.
All just speculation in the end, but it's not hard to inform yourself if you know where to look. You disagree with what I said or?
With what; you knowing anything about economics and crypto-currencies? No, I just think bullying you and the contrast within this thread are both funny.
I know little of economics and practically nothing about cryptoes. I could neither agree nor disagree. Your case seems reasonable, at any rate.
I think that article is extremely sexist to claim that women aren't risk-takers. That is a huge generalization that fails to realize the fact that women are unique individuals more than they are part of an allegedly homogenous group forced upon them by society, and I frankly think it is despicable and should be condemned.
However, I won't be too polarized and agree that the article brings up a good point. Open distributed blockchains are inherently sexist and this should be brought to everyone's attention so that we can unite against the oppression and set ourselves free from the chains of the patriarchy.
XeeleeFlower wrote:If you guys wish to wax poetic on the wonders of women, gender issues, etc, create a new thread. Please keep this discussion about cryptocurrency.
How long does it generally take for you to be able to sell a new coin? The reason I have not looked into ICOs so far is because of the damn time commitment before it gets listed on an exchange.
Gendarme wrote:How long does it generally take for you to be able to sell a new coin? The reason I have not looked into ICOs so far is because of the damn time commitment before it gets listed on an exchange.
Read their whitepaper, they often write, when they go on exchanges.
