Cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen


Everyone is excited about the next fast, feeless cryptocurrency with high throughput. Why is everyone so excited? Because Bitcoin is slow and expensive with low network capacity. Therefore, we NEED a cryptocurrency that provides us faster and cheaper transactions. We NEED a cryptocurrency that can scale. The problem is we already have cryptocurrencies that achieve this. Ripple, Stellar, Iota, Bitshares, Steem and many others can achieve exceptionally high throughput with minimal or no fees you can argue against those individually, but not all of them - the point is others can achieve it.

Steem is a great example as it confirms transactions in 3 seconds with no fees and processes over a million transactions per day with little to no issues at all. In other words, not only does it have the solution on paper, but it is implementing it too. Yet it is half the size of Raiblocks. There are many other cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen too.

Andreas Antonopoulos, one of the greatest minds on Bitcoin, cleverly said that "in order to have scaling problems, you first need to have scale. But I don't even need this argument because I think EVEN if the block lattice works perfectly under stress, it won't ever be placed under stress.

In other words, it won't be adopted. Well this is where things get more controversial - Because I don't view scalability as the number one issue facing cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin was practically free to use at one point. Did that cause everyone to come running? What about all the cryptocurrencies with block speeds in the single digit seconds?

Are we all running to them? The number one issue facing cryptocurrencies now is not scalability - time will fix that issue, guaranteed. It is the natural evolution of technology to fix such technical issues.

No, the major issue facing cryptocurrencies right now is that they are generally INFERIOR to the relative centralized solution, which prevents adoption. Why use Bitcoin when you have Paypal or Square? Consumer protections, comfort, more businesses accept it, and your friends actually know what it is.

Cryptocurrencies suffer due to poor user interfaces, a lack of public understanding, few businesses accepting them and applications that look like they came straight out of the s.

Until cryptocurrencies become comparable to their relevant centralized competitor to the laymen person, they will always be stuck in niche use cases - period. Some people speculate Raiblocks will become the next major cross-cryptocurrency pairing over Bitcoin. If speed were the concern, why isn't Ether used for more cross-currency pairing than Bitcoin? I'll tell you why - because speed simply does not matter outside of transfers between exchanges. Once inside an exchange, all trades are settled internally.

This means you could have a cryptocurrency with 10 hour blocks and it would settle as quick as an instanteneous cryptocurrency once inside an exchange. Furthermore, for a cryptocurrency to take over Bitcoin for purchasing altcoins, it would need fiat onramps.

Raiblocks isn't even on any major exchanges yet outside of Binance soon. The long and the short of it is this: Stop being distracted by what is possible and think more about simply what IS. If Apple hasn't proven to you yet that superior tech isn't what matters, then I don't know what will. I have nothing against Raiblocks and the team itself, more the speculative frenzy surrounding it.

You gained a new follower today, looking forward to going through some of your analysis, and glad to have ya on Steem. I really need to start watching more analysis videos, I've been enjoying them a lot over the holiday break: However, I don't agree with many of ways you've presented the data or the rational that this is just a pump and dump.

I figured I'd leave my thoughts as to why, since I absolutely love a good debate. First of all, the comparison to Steem and Bitshares isn't represented well.

You are right in pointing out that Steem has incredibly high transaction volume at a peak of 1. However, when you do the math on that, you'll see that 1. Steem and Bitshares are arguably close to each other in terms of transaction speed, but neither of them are anywhere close to what RaiBlocks has been proven to achieve. There's also the issue that both Steem and Bitshares are filled with non-transfer operation types, which can fill up blocks fast and could create delays in confirmation.

Why is RaiBlocks different? It's because it's not cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen blockchain like Bitcoin, Steem or Ethereum - it's something fundamentally different and new, a block lattice or DAG. Users submit transactions to these producers for inclusion within the next block on the blockchain. Their transaction is included if space permitsthen subsequently confirmed, to prove that it's a valid transaction as it propigates through the network.

At the core, almost all adoption related issues can be attributed to this flaw within this model of the blockchain - limited space and time. It doesn't matter how great you make the Bitcoin wallet's UI, how many stores accept it, or how many people are doing transfers to one another - the blockchain itself is the source of the frustration in nearly every case.

The model these blockchains follow creates inconveniences and a dependency upon whoever or whatever is creating each block or until you move off-chain, like Lightning. Instead of a relationship between a user and block producer, in which the user submits operations to the block producers, they are one and the same. The only wait for inclusion is now based on the time it takes for your machine to create and validate that transaction and then broadcast it. Blocks are never full and there's no fee market to compete against.

Technologically, in my opinion, it's a superior way of including data within a publicly distributed and decentralized ledger. The frenzied hype and most of the garbage you read on the internet doesn't talk about any of this because most people don't really understand what's actually happening or how it works.

Most people are seeing fast transactions that don't cost them a dime, so that's what they're cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen about. Once you dig deeper into the technology you'll start to realize what's magical about it and why smarter money is betting on RaiBlocks to upset many other currencies.

At least that's what I see in this current rise: Also - one last point I'd cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen to make regarding something you said 7: I believe the adoption of RaiBlocks has already been much more rapid than either Steem or Bitshares.

RaiBlocks at this point is at 2. Steem's been more widely used for much longer than RaiBlocks, so I'd imagine that at this point, there are more transfers on RaiBlocks per day than there are for Steem. There's no good way to look up this data at the moment so I'm speculating, but you can't rule it out and just say that these chains are more widely adopted. To close, I have high expectations for all of the currencies you've mentioned. This is a great comment and I really appreciate you taking the time to write out a very clear description of the technology that RaiBlocks runs on.

I noticed that one of Crypto Investor's points was that scalability is something that is always cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen in time, and though it is somewhat true for centralized technologies, the case for Bitcoin is far from the typical, and the LN is not even close to being the decentralized scalability solution that Bitcoin has been searching for.

First of all, how does LN work? If Alice wants to send money to Bob, they have to open up a payment channel on LN, which involves both of them sending money into a special Bitcoin address, after which they can exchange bitcoin so long as the channel is open, and eventually close it in order to "commit" the transactions on the main blockchain hence the "off-chain" nature of the LN.

You can link multiple channels like so: If you plan on only doing off-chain transactions, it's basically not possible, because these bitcoins must be sent on-chain in order for the channel to get set up. Suppose we want to supportusers.

In this iteration of the LN, we can have a user with one payment channel to 10 other users, with no redundant connections i. However, this isn't the only setup for the network. A large number of channels in CS terminology, the branching factor means that users would have to divide up their funds over all of these channels in order to even use them. A large number of hops means that all of the users' bitcoins will be locked up routing everybody else's bitcoin. Especially since, in a hop, there is effectively a loan going on because we use network time to eliminate risk: Alice can only send money to Bob once she is sure that Bob has paid Stacy, otherwise we'd be in trouble.

In addition to this, every single hop that we make over the network must have sufficient funds in order to make this lend possible - for example, if Alice wanted to send 1 BTC to Stacy but Bob doesn't have that much, we can't use Bob for this payment channel, and have to find another one. So you can see that, at least from this very quick explanation, the LN makes nothing better for decentralized scalability. It lends itself very well to centralization because then exchanges can act as the middlemen that ensure that enough bitcoin is in all the required payment channels so cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen merchants are able to use them, but I don't see any merchant ever using the LN anyways, because it has to commit some amount of Bitcoin for each channel, which is not feasible for many day-to-day businesses or even big corporations Starbucks, for example.

So my point is, if RaiBlocks has indeed "solved" the scalability problem, it will be extremely good for crypto as a whole because we can actually use the damn thing to pay for our groceries. A great writeup and you highlighted my thoughts exactly regarding LN, I couldn't have said it better myself.

I deleted a couple paragraphs from my original response that actually echoed some of these exact same thoughts because I was getting too word-y: I really wish I could say the same about IOTA, but it's in a semi non-functional state and is a painful experience to use. Thanks for sharing your opinion about Iota.

The whitepaper fascinated me so much I was thinking about opening an account on some exchange to buy a little. Still might but feeling less urgency now. I personally hold IOTA and will continue to do so. But - I have a feeling it'll slide down a bit more before it jumps any higher. I'm a terrible trader though, so don't take my investment advice for more than it's worth: I, too, am a terrible trader. I want to be a buy and hold investor but that has caused me to ride too many positions to zero or near there.

So I treat every position as a trade and let the ones that work become investments. The market finally convinced me that controlling my losses was more important than maximizing my gains. That took a while because I appear to be a slow learner. This author states it, but that doesn't make it true, and his claim is unsubstantiated.