Re:Why Bitcoin Can't Help the Poorest, Yet
by bduerst on Friday January 15, 2016 @03:25AM
(#10907954)
Now you're just being ignorant. The base transaction fee to cover latency is magnitudes less than that to be included in a competitive smaller block.
The point still stands, and you're demonstrating confirmation bias. How much money have you put into Bitcoin, I wonder?
Re:Why Bitcoin Can't Help the Poorest, Yet
by CyberDildonics on Friday January 15, 2016 @12:55PM
(#10910863)
> The base transaction fee to cover latency is magnitudes less than that to be included in a competitive smaller block.
None of this makes any sense at all, the words don't even go together in the context of bitcoin. It is isn't even coherent enough to be true or false, it reads more like some sort of auto generated nonsense. Do you even understand what I said earlier?
I get that you have some sort of vendetta against bitcoin but stringing words is pretty desperate.
This isn't true now and it hasn't been for quite a while now, transactions need to carry fees to go through because miners have another choice that you happen to overlook - they don't have to mine a transaction if they don't want to. Miners can ignore transactions and let another miner mine them. This is actually beneficial for them because it decreases their blocksize and therefore their latency. If a miner mines a block unusually quickly by chance and wants to be generous, they can include more low fee transactions but I'm not sure this something anyone is doing automatically.
So it isn't the bleak outlook you describe because mining small fee transactions isn't to anyone's benefit.