Fill in the blank

Digibyte is actually a decent coin, and has a lovely dev team. It's why I don't by into the "muh fundamentals" of crypto too much. Of course I pay attention to bigger shit, like the scaling debate, and such. But it's more important to understand what the market is thinking.

>>3178639

Good morning Jared! I stand behind you 100% because DGB is better than LTC and complements BTC better. Don't listen to anybody on this forum website. I placed my life savings in your technology and I know it was the right decision! Have a great day Jared!

File: IMG_7410.jpg (35KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x294px

>>3178639

VIA

>>3178639
"40x faster than bitcoin"

Having a smaller blocktime doesn't mean a coin is "faster" than bitcoin, it means the coin has a smaller blocktime than bitcoin. It's literally just a constant in the code, it's not "innovation" or "advancement". Confirmations matter because each represents a certain amount of work that backs up your transactions (and must be redone in order to double spend those same funds again). In order to reach the same level of security that 1 bitcoin confirmation affords you'll end up waiting for several digibyte confirmations, which on average will take LONGER than 10 minutes.

Digibyte is cheaper than bitcoin. Because people actually use bitcoin and there is demand for space on the blockchain. NOBODY is actually using digibyte so fees are low. If people start using digibyte it will face the same fee problems bitcoin has. Sadly this will never happen.

WE ARE THE DIGIMARINES

>>3179052
>In order to reach the same level of security that 1 bitcoin confirmation affords you'll end up waiting for several digibyte confirmations

This is a decent point, but try to think of it as adding variety to the market. Perhaps, in certain circumstances, speed and volume are more important than security.

>>3179255
I'm not saying that 10 minutes is the perfect blocktime. It probably isn't. But just because you went into the code and changed a 10 to a 5 doesn't mean your coin is suddenly

TWICE AS FAST AS BITCOIN! INNOVATION! PROGRESS!

Your coin mines blocks twice as fast as bitcoin. But each block is worth half of what a bitcoin block is worth (actually less than half because your network has less hashpower than bitcoin).

It's like changing a dollar for 4 quarters and then suddenly claiming you have more money.

>>3179255
in which case you would use the lightning network that is coming to btc in no rush, because noone uses crypto as a main source of payment yet.
alts that have their only selling point in "being a better bitcoin" will be eliminated from contention for the throne once lightning launches.
also, jared looks like a down syndrome kid.

>>3179370
Again, think of it like this:
If I wanted to see transactions recorded on the blockchain quickly, and I'm dealing with high volumes (DGB does this in 15 second windows, bitcoin is, currently, at 10mins), DGB would be what I'd choose. It all depends on my needs, as a business.

If bitcoin can eventually lower block times, while maintaining as much as possible of the attributes its blocks currently have, then of course it'd be the superior choice to DGB, for my needs.

>>3179893
>>3179370

Guys Guys...stop fighting...
There is simple solution to it.

>>3179893 use Bitcoin
>>3179370 use DGB

PIVX.

>If bitcoin can eventually lower block times, while maintaining as much as possible of the attributes its blocks currently have, then of course it'd be the superior choice to DGB, for my needs.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211535.0

I am aware of the issues that can come with lower block times. I think bitcoin should be used for different purposes, than DGB would be, for that reason. Bitcoin should not aim to have lower block times, imo. And if that's the case, then other coins can find their niche in the market, by focusing on these issues.

>>3179976
>>3179893

Digishield solved the retargeting issue. Digi id & Digusign package the two most promising use cases for blockchain tech. ATOMIC SWAPS WILL CHANGE THE GAME.

everyone should have 21k dgb.

>>3179893
>>3179976
>>3179990
I don't see what the advantage is to "seeing the transaction recorded in the blockchain sooner" is if the tip of the blockchain is inherently more volatile due to the intentionally lower blocktime. If you don't give a shit about double-spends then just use bitcoin and trust the transaction once it hits the mempool.

>>3180058
Any process that requires reading off of the blockchain would likely benefit from having that information sooner, I know that's incredibly vague. To get onto the blockchain, the transactions do require some level of confirmation. To just go by bitcoin's mempool would not be any better.

digishit