Bitcoin Forum

For our savings, we must retain self-custody, but I would contend that custody of little sums is not always a terrible thing.  Yes, I would prefer to pay with my own money when I buy myself a coffee, but if doing so requires me to incur exorbitant costs or run the danger of starting another block size war, then forget it.  I retain Bitcoin for my big quantities and prefer to place a little faith in a reputable third party.

That sounds a little... absolutist?  If that's going to set the tone for this thread, we're off to a ropey start.  So let's get a few things clarified here:

It's not that the base layer "cannot" scale.  It's that it has to be scaled intelligently because there are consequences to getting it wrong.  I would also argue quite a few users of the word don't correctly comprehend the meaning of 'scaling' to begin with, anyway.  

'Linear growth' is not the same as 'scaling'.  BCH is doing linear growth.  That's not an improvement of technology, it's just using more resources in the same inefficient way.  Real scaling comes from advancing technology.

doomad never understands scaling
he thinks scaling means LEAPING to huge sizes is scaling because whenever anyone talks of scaling he cries about super size blocks to amounts NO ONE but his cultish ilk mention

scaling is small progressive growth.. not delay and leap.. .. but its doomads cultish ilk that want delays and then jumps but only when they command it via their idols they treat as gods (centralised devs protected by politics of moderation policies and hierarchy of reference client sole control)

..
funny part is he loves to say bitcoin should allow one transaction to cost $50 but then says bitcoin should not scale due to fears of the same $50 being the cost to store 20 years+ of transactions(billions of transactions)
reality is, once he takes his meds, one day he will see if he thinks people should pay many $'s per use then a $50 hard drive which all computers need anyway is more then enough for decades of decentralising the blockchain
he cant play poverty at decades of use but be ok with single use premium costs.. thats insanity

if he is ok with his crappy narrative of $100 to lock-unlock from his favoured shoddy subnetwork once a year. then he should have no fear of a $50 cost per 5-15 year. and should actually want to see onchain transactions cost under $1 each where many people collectively transact to then give mining pools a nice bonus total

Block size war is over. People who support bigger block size, but still choose Bitcoin is in minority.


Mere copies? Ridiculous, many sidechain/L2 offer feature what Bitcoin doesn't.


LN is far from perfect and only meant for micro-transaction. But FWIW there are few light non-custodial LN wallet where you only rely on 3rd party watchtower.


That's true, but Liquid also offer Confidential Transaction, faster block time and turing-complete smart contract.

What does it have to do with custody? Blocksize war isn't related to that. I'm curious as to what point and how it connects with the topic you presented OP. I'm quite confused now.

Anyway, I agree that self-custodial is the way if you were to ever support BTC.

Wrong. There was never a chainsplit or even a community split. Majority have so far always been on the singular chain which is called Bitcoin.

Everything else including bcash are copies of Bitcoin and there are lots of them (BCH, BSV, BTG, BTS, ...) in fact during 2017 there were at least 20 different copies created just like bcash.

Wrong. Bitcoin (which is not a "faction") increased the on-chain capacity back in 2017 with the soft-fork known as SegWit.

Again bcash is not a "faction" it is one out of a dozen copies created from Bitcoin which has nothing to do with it. It's just a centralized shitcoin with a mutable chain that has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Wrong.
You scale your altcoin based on demand and this altcoin has no demand as it is clear from its empty blocks. So it did not scale anything, it just has bigger block size cap that is left unreached.

Similar to 2017, Bitcoin is under a spam attack that has created a congestion and triggered the mechanism that automatically battles spam attacks which is the fee market.

You do have to trust the centralized authority that controls this centralized altcoin and can for example perform a 51% attack anytime they want to reverse transactions.

Based on example he mentioned, i assume he refer usage of custodial service to avoid high free. For example, custodial LN wallet or using centralized/federated sidechain where theoretically they can freeze/steal your pegged Bitcoin.

Bitcoincash has not solved the problem, most blocks are mined empty and have not been tested compared to Bitcoin, as most blocks come full, but over time, many will realize that for growth in adoption, increasing block sizes may be appropriate.
Layer 2 solutions are ideal for small transactions and everyday payments but are not a solution for long-term scalability. This topic has generally been discussed hundreds of times.

Thank you all for the follow up.
I'm going to answer to some of you.

ABCbits - "Mere copies? Ridiculous, many sidechain/L2 offer feature what Bitcoin doesn't."

That's not what I said, the "current system" I'm referring in that specific quote is the FIAT system.


pooya87 -
When I talk to Bitcoiners and Bcashers, the goal in both cases is a fair currency, we can talk about factions because they both pursue the same goal, in different ways, often in contrast with each other.

Bcash is neither currency nor fair. For example one of the requirements for a fair crytocurrency based on blockchain is to have an immutable blockchain. Bcash stopped being immutable the moment they decided to roll back their blocks with a 51% attack.
There is a lot of other reasons such as being centralized, having a centralized mining cartel, having no utilities, no demand, etc.

You can't use the term "faction" for bcash because it is an unrelated altcoin like LTC or ETH or ...

Bcash does not have the same goal as BTC, it is neither decentralized nor censorship resistant and there are also a lot of security flaws and vulnerabilities in their system. Statements that the both coins have the same goal is what leads newbies into buying Bcash in exchanges, when what they actually wanted to purchase is BTC. Only few people want to use Bcash and so there is little to no demand for it, hopefully this number reduces gradually until we see the end of this shitcoin.

Much as I agree with you, I have to point out that there's ordinals floating in the network that's making it congested thus making the payments for it more expensive for those that are just using bitcoin to do transactions so even if custodial is a wrong thing for us, it still should be an option for in the cases you're going to need the money and that you don't want to be paying those high fees, they can be an option for you but nonetheless it should be a last resort kind of thing. Also, isn't BCash worth nil anymore? And it's a different kind of network anyway? So how is there a blocksize war on something that has a clear winner?

never was a chainsplit?! oh no, you have caught the ignorant blind disease of the stupid bridage again.
sorry to tell you this but there was a chain split.
its not like BCH is a complete separate altcoin that had its own unique block 0 genesis

please just check the block data and node code of previous versions of nodes to correct yourself.. you dont need to believe me.. nor falsely TRUST the cult stupid brigade, but simply check the data, then you wil see what happened and who caused what

in 2017 there was a NYA agreement(only required economic node/pool participation) to orchestrate the banning of blocks that used old version numbers.. whereby pools and economic nodes would only accept the new block versions to signal a move to segwit, and strip the block data to old nodes that would not understand segwit that segwit nodes of economic nodes and pols were part of..  (normal user full nodes didnt get a vote(backward compatibility trick)

you can check this using real data of code and blockdata.. not human trust..
the blocks that had old versionbits ended up being BCH. and segwit via the mandated NYA policy version bits, only accepted the new version bit blocks by banning peers that tried to send old style blocks. thus causing a divergence of nodes..
so the initial split of block versions was orchestrated by segwit nodes
it was actually gmaxwell that then pleaded to the bch crowd(faction) to change some code afterwards to not cause segwit nodes to keep needing to ban older nodes/blocks to formalise the separation..(of the factions)

the mandatory block selection which you can see(via mandatory banning old versionbit marked blocks) was a unnatural incline to 100% reading of block versions to make it feel like the network wanted to 100%(via banning old block version) move to segwit to an unnatural acceptance 100% of segwit virtue signally

so when old nodes using code before 0.12 would accept old versionbit blocks. it did cause a split.. but it did not require old nodes to adjust code to do so. old nodes accepting old blocks did not need to change code to cause a fork.. the fork ocured due to segwits block selection(rejection)

emphasis the code adjustment between the block types was actually initially caused by the segwit side of nodes. and banning peers that tried to push old blocks to segwit accepting nodes.. and then segwit nodes only accepting segwit signalling blocks would strip the blocks to remove witness to then filter stripped blocks to their peers that didnt understand segwit(aka backward compatibility) to cause some user nodes to stay on the segwit accepting side without a vote..

so check the code check the blockdata. and acquaint yourself with fact not the fiction via the idiot brigade.. dont fall int the trap of the silly stupidity you followed years ago. dont fall down the wrong rabbit hole again due to trusting silly narratives.. lets the block data and code guide you to the true events.. then you cant blame yourself or anyone for what happened, nor in what order.. as the blockdata and code holds the truth

bch didnt decide to create an altcoin by tweaking code to cause a differential of different block type before august.. they only changed code afterwards due to pressure from the segwit devs AFTER the block versions separated

im saying this to correct fact, and no it does not mean i wanted nor was a bch-er i just prefer facts over fictions of versions of events of who caused what first

If I waste 1-2 hours of my life I can easily create a new shitcoin using the same Genesis block with the same blockchain and same everything else except a small change like having 10 MB blocks and a different difficulty adjustment policy (to make it easily mineable with CPU/GPU). Then I can start building new blocks on top of it, pay a CEX to list my coin calling it Bitcoin Pooya and start trading it there.

Do you call that a chainsplit too?

chain split is another name for a fork. and yes there was one in 2017
weird that you can think there never was any of the sort..

especially in regards to the events of 2017..

a fork in the way you describe it, is not the only way one occurs.. but specifically the one you describe is usually orchestrated by a independent user doing their own change to be different than majority.. (unilateral is the cults buzzword(oops im overstepping the cult guide, ill get back to this word in a moment))
a chainsplit is where a minority move to their own thing when a main chain has a change of its own that cause 2 directions(bilateral is the cults buzzword(oops im overstepping the cult guide, ill get back to this word in a moment))

both are forks. but slight different ways they occur
oops did i beat you to the punch of you wanting to call the event a bilateral fork for instead of a chainsplit... hmm i wonder why ud ever get angry about mentioning chain split but want to call it by something else.. oh wait, the old script narrative is circling again of echo chamber stupidity just to copy and paste a silly notion of buzzword gamery..
sorry i stepped over your comments and beat you to the punch.. but yes there was a chainsplit no matter what you wanted to intend to call it instead to appease some relationship you are trying to develop with some idiot group of cultish people that dont even use blockdata or code to back up their notions of historic events but then later give in, give up, realise they are wrong, but to save face and not admit it,  give it some silly buzzword to pretend they are right by calling it something else to pretend they still stand by their own waste of time of arguing that there want a chain split by making up a new name for a chainsplit

Talking only about offchain.

Custody is good, it's the way I believe, and the way I trust.

But it's overrated by some people who just have no understanding of the reality for millions of people. Who will never have enough to consider as savings enough to want full and only custody. Who benefit more from custodial of others.

I have a hot wallet. Gambling. I prefer it sits there easy for me to use, I don't want to keep accessing cold wallet to deposit and withdraw after every single bet.

If I could pay tips easy, I would too, hot wallet with lightning yes for sure.

We're not talking about keeping even $1k, we're talking about $50. Some people will never understand this simple reality.

lightning is not the be-all end-all solution you think it is even its own developers point out many flaws even they cant fix which is where their work around is then to change LN's agenda goal into hubs of channel makers (factories/watchtowers/[insert buzzword of the month]) which users then rent/are given or offer msats(IOU) units pegged^tt to btc at a rate that has changed*.. and settle up later.. turning LN into a credit card system of buy now pay later instead of a debit system of pay first delivery of goods later..

^ttor where some lucky users that act as a multichannel hub lock up value as collateral to offer their own balance as loans(IOU for partners to owe/be owed, where it needs to settle/payback later)

*an msat iou unit was 1000msat:1sat now its more zeros depth pegged iou units

and thats before mentioning all the other flaws where LN just doesnt meet any of its old promises of being solutions to not require bitcoin to need to scale any time soon

(funny part is the recruiters that want to drive idiots to LN dont even see the flaws and work arounds as they are to even spin them into possible positives of calling it a credit system as a feature.. you know turn a negative into a positive by offering LN as a credit facility of loans(f*ck did i just give them an idea and do their job for them..))

i wont bore you with the other flaws. or we will just get the crybaby bridage playing victim again shouting insults because they dont like me pointing out the risk factors.. but there are many other risks. so dont rely on LN being the answer to all bitcoin things
..
that being said..
the future will see NEW(yet to be made) subnetworks for niche use cases that learn from the mistakes of LN and actually offer secondary options to bitcoin features.. but it is well worth you realising LN is not the solution you think it is, and LN devs admit it and are yet to offer anything different because their sponsorship deals were just to make and promote LN and that contract has yet to expire to allow them to escape endorsing LN

and with that said bitcoin still does now and will need to scale even if new subnetworks that dont have LN flaws/features/work-around's are made. so lets not just pretend subnetworks are the only option.. bitcoin needs to scale too

I see. But your thread doesn't mention fiat, bank or government, so how would i know you refer to fiat system? Besides, only some sidechain/L2 are centralized or federated with only few members.

Wrong. Chain-split could be a subcategory of forks or at best you could call it one of the possible outcomes of forks. But they are not the same thing.
A chain-split happens in a decentralized cryptocurrency when they can not reach consensus meaning when anything less than the decided percentage of the network (which is usually above 90%) didn't accept the change.
This was never the case with SegWit since the majority voted for it.
This was also not the case with Bcash since someone created the copy without needing to reach any kind of consensus. Something anybody can do at any time just as I pointed out in my example.

That could be the best choice retaining BTC and isolate third party of no trust is the best . The best is when you control your own asset it gives you more rest and confidence than under the custody of another party.

Let me guess, he's still rewriting history for how BCH came into existence?  Even though it's been robustly refuted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5075713.msg48278756#msg48278756)?

Announced fork was announced (https://viabtc.medium.com/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67).  Took place when announced to take place.  Did what it said on the tin.  Yet franky1 blames everyone but the people who announced it (https://viabtc.medium.com/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67).

Definitely dropped on his head a few too many times as an infant.   :D

funny comedy.. his source(VIABTC(aka nya participant) actually debunks what he says
via were part of the segwit nya side not the BCH side.. via named old block versions that persist after segwit activates BCH

emphasis
the NYA crew are the segwit supporting crew and it was the segwit supporting crew that said if there was to be a split they would call the not segwit supporting fork bitcoin cash
the split happened by old node users not changing code thus ended up on a split thus got CALLED bitcoin cash by segwit teams
it was not due to some ABC brand being developed by those wanting to create an altcoin. the ABC brand was segwit but under false pretenses to get segwit activated under a broken promise but in actual effect had mandatory rejection of old blocks(forking the network), along with the other silly mis-promises of segwit people, all done to push segwit activation by any means
 

when segwit started its mandate(due to nya) of rejecting old block versions.. in a mandate from economic nodes and mining pools (not user assisted, just economic/minerpool(NYA)). and in august those not retaining segwit blocks but retaining old versionbit blocks.. stagnated at first and adopting themselves as bitcoin cash(after august 1st) from the names the segwit crew of NYA decided to call the old versionbit block retaining chain, which the segwit supporting side caused to split(falsely/unnaturally getting 100% by rejecting old blocks and banning old nodes retaining old versionbit blocks)

https://viabtc.medium.com/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67
by supporting the NYA option it caused segwit to activate with the faked promise of 2x base.. but where it actually required segwit1.0 to activate first with the fake promise of a 2x at later date..
the mandatory activation of segwit was their goal, by rejecting old blocks. causing any old nodes that retain old block versionbits to be forked/split away

if you look at who the NYA are (DCG) and what side they funded. you would see it was all a bait and switch to get segwit activated. and its admitted even by doomads sources that the old blocks segwit ignores and old nodes segwit bans they would call bitcoin cash

yep even garzic and g.andresen were funded(bloq) by DCG who also funding segwit(blockstream) team

doomad really fails to use blockdata and funding and real info and tries to make subtle assumptions, based on little snippets(out of context), and then uses himself as source of his misunderstanding to be then his backup source of his narrative(echo chamber/confirmation bias of his own narrative to himself)..
but if you look at it all in full context, his story falls apart
..
i keep laughing at doomad.. he tries so hard to avoid the truth by not doing any research and then not understanding the links he then grabs actually goes against what he says, as he doesnt take things in full context nor looks at the surrounding impacts things had on each other to provide a full picture of actual events

he wants to pretend he knows things.. but has changed his narrative many times whereby initially he had said that:
a. BCH changed code early and forked themselves independently (his narrative was incorrect, code, block data prove it)
b. and yes doomad actually said in early days that segwit activated via UASF(another thing he got wrong then changed tune)
c. that he can replace words with idol invented buzzwords to hide his sillyness but not admit to the mistake,
but then:
d. every 6-12 months he keeps forgetting he got the whole thing wrong and got debunked so circles back to silly old notions he had wrong in the first place, acting like he never got debunked. quoting himself as source when using his own ignorance of real sources full context still prove him wrong back then and now
.. heck there were even times doomad got things soo messed up, he then came up with notions of agreeing with what i said but pretending it was his idea and then insinuate i was saying his old wrong versions.. because soon later he would then disagree and go back to his old notions again..

he cant even get his own story straight..
to pooya:
so just look at the block history of the version bits of both chains
look at the june july august of bitcoin.
and
look at when bch first began in august, and look at which code triggered the split.. use the block data, code and use the full context of the sides involved. of who buzzworded what first, who split first and who then demanded the other side change the magic to not cause endlessly peer banning and block rejecting

you will notice those thrust/ended up becoming BCH didnt instigate/desire a fork., they just tried to object to segwit. but got thrown off

i have never used bch and dont care for it. but getting the history correct is a detail that stops idiots being idiots just to hide the tricks played by sponsored devs of a certain fraternity, that wanted more network control by throwing opposition to the fraternities roadmap sponsored plans off the network.

yes bch changed after the august split.. but look at who orchestrated the split

We cannot say that bitcoin cash is the same as bitcoin, there are many thing that have the pairing of the name bitcoin as their coinage and yet they are not regarded as same with bitcoin, the moment there came the split  then we recognized bitcoin cash as not part of the bitcoin network, they are now centralized as regarded by many, if you're holding your bitcoin, then its all yours once you're with the private keys and its under a non custodial means, other dramas happening outside the network should take less concern with you. 

What for?
I use Wallet of Satoshi for some small payments (say max $50). Is this what you mean?
I don't think that using a reputable custodial solution for LN is bad per se, but we must always be aware that since we don't control the sats, they can be lost. So we must use them wisely with small amounts.

Easier and less expensive. 


Yes, Wallet of Satoshi is a good example.  I have not used it, but I know it is a lightning custodial wallet.  I was more interested in BlueWallet before it closed its custodial service.  Now I prefer low fee altcoins for small transactions. 

The central question is how to  efficiently process transactions while maintaining  decentralization and security. The notion of "scaling" as gradual, measured growth is a valuable point.  Imagine small, incremental improvements that enhance the network's capacity without jeopardizing its core principles.  Large, sudden leaps could introduce instability.

The concern about transaction costs associated with storing historical data is valid.  Imagine a scenario where the cost of storing decades of transactions becomes prohibitive for some users.  Finding a balance between affordability and data integrity is crucial. The argument that a one-time hard drive purchase is a reasonable expense for long-term storage is interesting.  However, the cost of entry for new users and the potential strain on resource-limited individuals shouldn't be dismissed.

Maybe I should be asking this in the technical discussion board, and was actually thinking of starting a topic just the other day but since it's being discussed here..one thing I've always been confused about is the testnets.  I've been told that a testnet is just like an actual chain in "real-time" being utilized, but then others have told me it's not.  If a testnet was truly the same thing, then these kind of coversations/debates would be over right?  Since you could then just easily test and prove what works/what doesn't.. but, I'm certainly not an expert..

Testnet is just a network where coins have no monetary value and its purpose is to test things before deploying them to the mainnet.  It is "actual" as in "real time", but I don't see the relevance of forks or chains here.  What's the catch?

I understand that aspect of it, & I actually have some bitcoin testnet coins that I’m aware have no real value.

Have you read the title of the thread? The discussion is around block size, and I know Pooya is an expert so was speaking to the threads main discussion/topic at hand.

No it doesn't, there no such thing as scaling on blockchain. The world, or even just small country, or even just a single city with a few million people needs a capacity for many millions of transactions per day. It's impossible to effectively process and store such amounts of data on a home computer, you need a specialized server equipment for that. So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

you been duped into the concept that scaling=leaping
(facepalm)
let me guess you now want to say how you think hard drives are expensive and will kill decentralisation to spend $50 to store terrabytes of data for multiple years of blockdata.. then you will say what you have said in some other topics of how bitcoin needs expensive transactions that are more expensive than one hard drive
lets skip the narrative and just already call it hypocrisy/contradicting yourself..

so lets clarify
FEE's are not needed to compensate halvenings.. SPOT PRICE deflation is what compensates halvenings.. not fee's
fee's are not needed as a main income earner any time soon.. so dont fall into the silly rabbit hole of promoting high fees as a good thing. as it then contradicts your fear of 'hard drive costs' being a cost problem of bitcoin users if you now want to say paying $20-$50(recent fee's on network) should be the norm

if you want to suggest paying $50 per tx is ok but $50 for decades of data storage is bad... then you need to stop listing idiots contradictions and stop listening to idiots telling you to say stupidity and instead realise that fee's being high is more of a annoyance than your PRETEND fears of storage cost

---

and with that said
you also seem to have been fooled into the STUPID narrative that the only way to get more transactions per block is LEAPING to 'visa speeds' or 'millions of transactions'

you really are missing the point of real scaling. there are many ways to improve transactions per block with needing to LEAP.. its called scaling
please learn scaling away from the idiot group that you seem to be leaning into with your current narratives

there are ways to SCALE without LEAPING to huge numbers.. stop thinking the only options is LEAP blocks to huge size or make people LEAP to other networks
scaling is not leaping and  scaling is not other networks (leaping ship)

..
you used to not sound like the cult narrative idiot brigade but i have seen you slowly get fooled into their narratives, promoting their idiotic rhetoric and promotions of a certain sponsored roadmap/subnetwork.. escape the rhetoric before you dig too deep a hole..
..
bitcoin is 15 years old.. and is still only hitting tx targets that satoshi said were possible in 2010
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/n-transactions-per-block
yep still hanging around the same 4k area that satoshi said was possible

yet even before talking about leaping the blocksize
yet even before talking about scaling the blocksize

bitcoin can scale up its transaction count multiple times...
a. uncludge the byte miscount and bad utility of block space(1mb:3mb segregation(bad utility of space)) to actually allow true bitcoin tx data in the full ('weight') block space and not have the cludgy separation (segregation) used for junky metadata, that currently miscounts bytes and ignore byte validity by assuming acceptance without thorough checks by all nodes of what goes in the 3mb area
b. make transactions leaner(yes its possible)
c. introduce fee formula's to punish only the spammers and bloaters to stop spammers/bloaters, while not punishing everyone else whilst letting spammers/bloaters get 'discounts'

average tx size is ~1kb  (4k tx of 4mb)
70% of blockspace is used by bloaters/spammers
meaning making tx leaner. having less spamming and utilising the cludgy 1mb base 3mb witnes to be a unified 4mb space for lean bitcoin value transfer data whereby every byte is purposefully lean to be only related to the tx data and signature proof of moving bitcoin
EG if the current ~4k tx is only 30% genuine bitcoiners. means a block is only genuine bitcoin utilised ~1200tx
so getting rid of spam/junk alone makes a 3.3x better scenario
making tx more lean causes more improvement. then decluging the miscount segregation. improves things further
which can turn a 4mb blockspace to be able to handle ~17,700 lean (226byte tx) of genuine bitcoiner utility, up from ~1200tx which is upto a 14x improvement without even touching "blocksize"

this would cause a increase of tx count for genuine bitcoiners by multiples of the current average tx count before even doing block scaling..
and no blockscaling does not mean leaping to 'millions/billions of transactions per block' nonsense idiots want to pretend scaling means just so they can try to get people to avoid even talking about scaling because the idiots want to pretend scaling is leaping

Yes, that's why I don't get it how testnet is related with blocksize.


Can you tell us how to SCALE at that point?  Since all I am perusing is inconsequential babble.  Tell us how to scale the blockchain on in such a way that the whole world can utilize it without paying a fortune on transaction fees.  And it would be ideal if you could point to a cryptocurrency network that has executed your thoughts.

as for scaling the blocks without needing dev political decisions..
much like how difficulty does not need dev politics to manually code at every interval of their choosing.. , where instead code exists that uses ~2016 blocks as its bases for self adjustment within the node if there are too many or not enough blocks within a fortnight

we could implement code that every [insert milestone*] if over 90% of blocks are over 90% filled then blocksize increases by X %

*milestone possibilities
26250 blocks (6 months)
52500 blocks (1 year)
105000 blocks(2 years)

and no this is not about leaping to huge blocksizes like the itiot brigades pretends it means

---

dont be fooled into the idiot brigade narrative(aka core tyranny control fangirl cult)

their trick is to not get core to test it on a bitcoin testnet to see if it works or broke/bugs/exploits out.. and if pass then implement in bitcoin..
they instead want anyone not core to f**k off and create a crapcoin, and then be ignored simply because its a crapcoin.. whether it works or not. thus ignore it as a option simply because its a crap coin no one uses even if the code doesnt break
they just want anyone with any proposal thats not the core plan to f**k off the network and leave the bitcoin network in cores dev politics hands just following their core roadmap

and no
proposals dont come after code..
its proposal first. then code, then test on a testnet then if work added as a mainnet candidate release
(as per the cores own moderate guidelines of bips)

If you knew how to scale blockchain, it would not be another "crapcoin".  You just named me a few tiny details and think as if you solved the scaling problem.  Even if we "uncludge the byte miscount" and punish spammers with your "fee formulas", you still cannot handle millions of transactions per second, on-chain.  I repeat:  Can you tell us how to SCALE?  Or are you just another keyboard warrior?

Because the issue that the blocksize war brings isn't something that you can just fix in a single day, people will always disagree on things if they were given the chance, moreso if they have made sound points about their cases. This is the case for the blocksize war. On one hand you have the purists who wanted the blocks to remain at a single megabyte, while they know this means that bitcoin's scalability is in shambles, it also means that they can secure bitcoin and shield it from getting tarnished, with the possibility of even losing bitcoin to hackers, and of course against people who see bitcoin as nothing but a cashcow which they would use for their personal gain.

on the other hand, bitcoin needed this scalability so badly if they wanted to have a shot at breaking it globally. It's bad enough that bitcoin's got a bad wrap at the people, it would be even worse if people are pushed away by the fact that you can't use bitcoin without tanking huge fees and slow wait times that sometimes take days.

I'm all for what makes bitcoin better and accessible to the public really. Even if it means we gotta do some massive bitcoin makeover.

you are stuck in the LEAP to "millions of transactions per second" IDIOCY
as a way to avoid rational discussion of scaling

do you again want to be ignorant to the difference between scaling vs leaping

try not to be a idiot by thinking the only option is 'jump to millions of transactions a second or ignore all other options'
dont be a fool.. try to learn scaling..

we do not need to LEAP to millions of transactions a second
we as a planet do not need a "single world currency where billions of people do their few transactions a day on one currency"
do not use the naive idiotic "one world currency/new world order dystopia agenda" game as a reason to not scale bitcoin

by you leaping to "millions of transactions a second" need(in idiots mind) the second part of that narrative becomes "but doing so leads to dystopia and centralisation so lets avoid it and do nothing instead"

you need to realise scaling is not about the STUPID leap of the millions per second.. so shut up about it
the only idiots speaking of millions per second is the idiot group that dont want any scaling by any measure so use stupid extremes just to even try to quash anyone talking of any proposals outside cores plan


you(and doomad cult) are the only ones suggesting bitcoin should perform every transaction of all people on one currency..
scaling is not what you speak of and scaling is not what you want it to sound like.. get the hint

heres some math
8 billion people, 4 transactions a day (32bill)
32bill/24/60/60=370,000tx  a second

yep so when you STUPIDLY shout the STUPID narrative of millions a second, you done ZERO math, done no logical thinking, no economics to even know what you are talking about. you are just repeating the same nonsense doomads cult speak, and no wonder he gives you merit fo speaking his nonsense

do you know that in the real world, once people pay like 5 transaction a MONTH
(housing, electric, water, gas, local tax)
they then do maybe 4 tx a month for groceries
they then do most 2 transactions a day for incidentals, random stuff
the world do not need millions of tx per second even if there was a one world currency scenario
reality of economics is about 3 a day per person

so there is no need for your silly speak of "millions of transactions a second"
even 3tx a day * 8 billion people is no where near millions of transactions a second for the whole planet
3*8b=24b
24b/24hours=1billper hour
1bill per hour=16,666,666 a minute
16,666,666per min=277,777 a second.. = FAR BELOW YOUR NAIVE EXTREME NONSENSE

yep even in the cultish dreamscape dystopian extremist cult/centralised adoring world you wish to push as your version how you see "scaling"(i call your silly speak leaping) atleast get your dystopian maths correct of ~270-370tx a second and not the STUPID (not thought about) "million a second" dumb speak of your dystopian dream of one world currency


so stop using dumb narratives you heard else where that scaling needs millions a second
it makes you look dumb and obvious that you have fallen into the idiot brigade cult trap of talking about silly things to avoid talking about actual scaling

---

i just explained in previous post, quoting an even previous post.... and there is even previous posts to that in many topics over the years that go into even more detail..
 if you cant then do the math of transaction count benefit even when explained in dumbed down version, thats your problem

but ill give you a hint
right now most blocks are junk/bloat/spam filled 70%
meaning of the 4k tx of 4mb only ~1200 is considered rational genuine bitcoiner use
bitcoin right now has an average tx size of 1kb(4k tx of 4mb)

so taking the junk intent and spam intent away, changing then cludgy segregation to then allow true txdata utility. and then making tx leaner. can allow 17,700 tx instead of 1.2k tx genuine bitcoinr use, and thats before even changing the block size beyond 4mb

4,000,000 byte/ lean tx of 226byte = upto 17,700tx genuine bitcoiner use

yep before even changing the blocksize,.. just cleaning up the silly stuff can get a upto 14x+ increase of tx per block of genuine bitcoiner use
and then progressively scaling the blocksize can increase that further
oh and there is ways to make transactions of 1in 2out(destination and change) way less than 226bytes so transactions can get even leaner..
oh and there is ways to make transactions of multiple IN multiple OUT to also be under 226bytes so transactions can get even leaner..
(i used used 226 as a demo number not the limit of leanness)

That's why block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

the cost of running is negligible

if the idiot brigade telling you stories that the cost of a $50 hard drive is too high, listen to them when they then say they prefer no one transacting unless they pay $50 for one transaction.. and listen hard and good at their hypocrisy and tyranny of not wanting people to use bitcoin unless they pay stupid high fee for one transaction but call that one transaction high fee 'acceptable cost', but stupidly say the same amount is too high to protect decades of transactions
if you agree that $50 is ok for 1tx but $50 is not ok for 20 years of millions of tx.. then you need to sort your math out and not just blindly recite silly things

increase based on measurements.. but that of block fill over time.. not dev politics of deciding costs
core DEVS should not pretend to be economists , pretending they care about the price/cost when all history and examples of their economic decisions show  they prefer to miscount things, discount the wrong things, premiumise te wrong things, and do it all to promote another network people should use.

core devs need to get out of governing the network and get out of sponsoring other network migrations.. and instead concentrate on bitcoin features that benefit bitcoiners not their fiat backed sponsors that want to become the middlemen controller of crypto

Not your call.  Block size will only be altered if/when those securing the chain collectively agree to bear that cost.  No formula or measurement will make that decision for them.  The impetus will come from them and not the other way around. 

The scaling debate proved pretty conclusively that people talking about what it "should" be are just making noise.  The only thing that matters is what non-mining nodes will offer to relay and what miners support.  And that will be determined by the code people are choosing to run.

If code doesn't exist to support your view or you aren't actively running that code, you're achieving nothing.  Everything else is just a somewhat worthless opinion.

conclusion
doomads cult admits core authority where users have no say or choice over code.. because "backward compatibility" doesnt make choice it just allows things to pass without checking if core uses its softened rules to change things.  where user nodes bypass rejecting things it does not have rules for

the non-mining nodes he speaks of are not user nodes with "backward compatibility" he speaks of the core nodes that are altered by core and their sponsors (NYA economic nodes) to elevate their control.. to allow/reject what THEY do-dont want.. everyone else is just a follower of core code change after the fact of core politics

doomad will use his cult recruits to REKT anyone releasing proposals/code that has not gone through the core moderation policy of technical discussion to even get a proposal to elevate beyond discussion

OK.  So, you DON'T know how to SCALE.  You only know how to complain about the current state.  You want blocksize increase but you are not willing to move to an alternative network (like Bitcoin Cash).  You need to grow up and realize that in these networks, people do not fair go along with your word.  You either accept the compromises of the current network or you use another network.  It's a fantastic deal considering that before that you could not have the second option. 

if you think the only option is blind follow core or create an altcoin
then you are definitely on the centralised bitcoin cult side, you want the tyranny control of core human politics AKA a government

you have failed understanding the point of bitcoin
you have failed understanding consensus purpose
you have failed understanding the point of decentralisation
you have failed many things

but thanks for admitting you are one of those idiots..
go ahead and remain ignorant. seems its too late for you.

all thats left for you now, is to replace yourself at the keyboard, for a bot that just recites/repeats doomads cult messages
...

the only option is not "do nothing onchain to benefit bitcoiners thats different of core politics or create another network and leave bitcoin".. thats is just stupidity of a controlling group of idiots narrative

the only option is not "do nothing onchain to benefit bitcoiners or LEAP to nonsense amounts of absurdity numbers no rational person takes serious"
..
i have listed multiple things that can achieve a growth of transaction counts without needing to(their other narrative to avoid any benefit) LEAP to nonsense numbers
i do laugh that doomad and his cult think that code cannot control change via formulae or measurement... um here s highlight. formulaes and measurements to effect change is exactly what code does
to think bitcoin can only operate via core devs politics decisions is the biggest failure doomad and his cult keeps reciting
take the 'network hashrate difficulty' for instance. it does not need core dev politics involvement every fortnight

---

responding to below

no bitcoin consensus should be where those using the bitcoin network dont just have blindly slave follow core politics or leave
but instead not have a central core government..
you wanting a core government jsut makes bitcoin a failed FIAT currency.
bitocin was created to not be government controlled by a class of hierarchy people in authority..

bitcoin was invented where different node brands on the bitcoin network should and could propose upgrades for the bitcoin network without needing to kiss the core monarchy ring. where by without core REKT campaigns the best code to benefit bitcoiners then (again emphasising without the REKT campaigns from core cultists) gets to activate an upgrade that benefits bitcoiners on the bitcoin network

..
i do gotta laugh when those idiots think the only option is
"follow core devs as governments who want to only add features to bitcoin that benefit leaving bitcoin for other networks(sub or alt)"
scaling bitcoin is not about leaving bitcoin for other networks, but is funny to see the idiots try to push that agenda

Me:  Wants from people to have the freedom to choose the network that is the best for them.  
You:  Wants from people to... do it in your way otherwise they are spammers and extremely oppressive?  

Got it!  ::)

I somewhat disagree about increasing based on how much block is filled, considering previous Ordinals spam. But otherwise i actually support bigger block size.

I don't think any sane Bitcoiner would agree to pay $50 for as TX fee and i already run full node on more expensive hardware. Besides, even $100+ used computer like this one (https://www.ebay.com/itm/381029033461?itmmeta=01HSWXWT65CZK5V3QM49P414JT&hash=item58b719a5f5:g:q-sAAOSwZd5kBjYr&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwGv1uUB%2BcdwJ%2FxvnSwKpho0WkxRVM3Isa50nOxmB2kCbJZbv6c%2BAarcqt6kLwJ%2B3SC3VSM%2BKLZn7ZhNlLk%2FAWCxHLoOvT2eLBjUJ0ayzDG10CsEHLx1aHSc%2Ft0fsjEAUoPEilefAoWHfqwIdZiU68e3ejjsb4kMG6z9IeBt46z0CEOMrLcBQnCBHFGZk8phC7MfbNmbecUQKE20ue%2FkUiuvlM%2FRKk8W3PncFX6O3P3CeYRmoOpw5hSrkUVPwgAzFpQ%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABlBMUMCj853PYw) (4 core, 16GB) with extra $50 probably can handle at least 5x of current BTC block size/weight while still can be used for other light tasks.


I never state i make any call either. And i never say about implementing formula which determine maximum block size either.

It sounded as though you were suggesting that someone would calculate some costs, determine a block size based on those costs and that those securing the chain would just kinda go along with it.  But whatever you did or didn't say, I'm making it abundantly clear that it doesn't work like that. 

If you are not happy with the high fees of btc, just use litecoin. Don’t waste your time with  bch which is a failed project. Litecoin has been dominating the on-chain purchases on bitpay for months now. It is clear that ltc is the ultimate cryptocurrency people want to use. If btc’s onchain was cheap, everyone would use it but it is not really cheap. Ltc is faster and cheaper. Yes it is a shitcoin, a btc copy pasta but guess what, that doesn’t stop ltc from being a great crypto.


Bch is done. The competition was over long time ago. LTC won.

People always used to say that if BTC was digital gold, then LTC would be digital silver.  Guess they weren't wrong.  Proof of the power of both network effects and first-mover advantage.  Earlier coins are proving more resilient than later clones.  They've had more time to grow their userbase and provide greater utility because of that.  A 'snowball effect' in action.

(stuff in red is exactly what doomad had been suggesting in his cult narrative of core adoration policy of them making decisions "someone" "them")
sounds like it was DOOMAD that suggested we should wait for someone (core) to collectively make the decisions because he does not believe in consensus(consent of the masses)

funny how he said many times for years that users dont get to tell core what to code and users just follow cores decisions, (his narrative: backward compatible (opt in (upgrade to latest core) after the activation by core) buzzwords) or users can make another network if they dont like cores decisions as the only choice to oppose core politics...(his narrative: follow core or f**k off)
yet now he says users get to choose collectively(consensus).. (i know him well enough that i think he is implying core is the 'collective',"them" as decision makers)
however if there is a true network node collective choice by the greater masses of bitcoin users..
choice based on which codebase/full node brand? which code base/brand will he not want to be REKT before people even get a choice?

seems he forgets his own narrative of which side he sits on..

---

it is funny though how he says bitcoin cant be coded to do things (like manage its own hashrate difficulty using measurements/formulaes) and how bitcoin requires human politics aka a coding government of decision makers that are not the bitcoin users, but a central group(core) of lead maintainers

but the funny thing is bitcoin is code. bitcoin does and can use code to create formulae that look at measurements(reference again "hashrate difficulty") without ongoing need of core human politics.. but doomad doesnt believe in trusting code, he wants us to trust core devs and be obediant to core devs, not code that can do things autonomously

Yes they weren't wrong indeed.

LTC is exactly like silver.

Look at gold (I mean actual gold, not btc), while gold is wandering around its ATH price(~$2200), silver (not ltc, actual silver) is nowhere near of its ATH (~$50). Gold to silver ratio today is 2183,86÷24,61=88.73. Silver has much more use in the industry than gold. More to that, silver becomes unusable once it is used. Gold can be as used again and again. You can use gold 10000 times and then use the same gold again for the 10001st time and it will function just like how it did in the last 10 thousand times. I heard that's not the case with silver.

We see the same picture between BTC and LTC. LTC is dominating the purchases but its price is not reflecting that demand from the users. People use it more, people need it more to buy stuff but its price is not going anywhere.

Or just use Monero and enjoy top anonymity levels and the lowest fees.


You do not need to make it any more apparent that you have no idea of what you are talking about.  Bitcoin is not around the masses voting for their most favored protocol.  It is about masses being given the alternative to select their most favored protocol.  Not change protocols.  Enter protocols.

Litecoin is currently the best choice as cryptocurrency that be used as a currency.

The price is quite stable and acceptable in a lot services, unlike Monero which get banned by government.
Safe enough and quite decentralized, unlike relying on centralized smart contract which usually get hacked once every few years.

Right now there's no problem with Litecoin, probably when it's already gain more attention, we might see ordinals inscriptions would attack Litecoin.

look at you all 'if your not happy with bitcoin use another network'
funny how those promoting that no one should suggest bitcoin onchain scaling solutions, are the same people that admit they prefer to use other networks and promote other networks


you really need to drop the doomad rhetoric and instead research bitcoin
the purpose of hardened rules and consensus was that new features did not activate unless the masses consented by having network readiness for a change..
that got softened in recent years where now core can change things even before network readiness to understand new core features
LEARN BITCOIN not cult adoration narratives, and you will see what bitcoin was all about before the core religious crap stepped in

yes core have got a foothold and now able to do more crap without network readiness but learn bitcoin and learn why we should not let it stranglehold bitcoin further.. learn that a core government is a central point of failure that needs to be sorted out

and dont bother replying if you are just going to sound like something you read from the cult group..

learn the real purpose of bitcoin and its consensus mechanism that ensured network readiness to fully validate rules. learn why it was invented and learn what need to change to get back to a secure lean and stronger network thats not governed by core politics and its twit army of cultish idiots

bitcoin is code and code can do things without the need of dev politics and sheep following acolytes
there should not be a central point of failure commanding and governing it. where it requires a hierarchy of human political decisions in a centralised group such as core

the point of my question is..
we should get back to numerous full node reference client brands on the network(that dont get REKT just for not being in cores roadmap path), where there is no single(centralised) moderated monarchy of proposal politics, whereby proposals are not controlled/REKT if they are not cores master plan. and then people can decide which is best and the best option activates based on consensus(consent of the masses)..

things you need to research:
solution to the byzantine general issue
consensus
the fact that bitcoin can operate without a central core government, and should operate without a central core government

and no.. the only option is not "follow core or f**k off to another network", though idiots will try to say thats the only option(they prefer to ever see)

edit about below
funny to see them same guys promote other networks in a topic about bitcoin scaling/blocksize needs for bitcoin utility

But don't forget Monero theoretically have lower TPS. While Monero have 2 minute block time, Monero TX is bigger and has smaller block size than Bitcoin. Looking at https://moneroj.net/blocksize/ (https://moneroj.net/blocksize/), current average Monero block size is only about 342KB.

You're not getting it, are you?  The roadmaps of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Litecoin and so on are not determined by just the users, but by the developers.  People decide which protocols to join according to the available options and roadmaps.  You cannot force a developer implement what you have got in your head.  The developer is free to write any code he/she wants and you can do nothing about it other than not running it.  

That's how it's going to work, no matter how you feel about it.


If there's enough demand, Monero can deal with more onchain transactions compared to Bitcoin.  The dynamic block size limit can be increased to maximum of (60 KB, 2 * median size for the past 100 blocks).  Read more about it in here:  https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/74.

you sound too much like doomad, infact i think you are doomads alt account because its too similar/verbatim to not be doomad

what you dont get is that core can code things, BUT bitcoins consensus WAS hard consensus(and should be hardened again) where it required the network of USERS to be ready to understand a new features rules and format BEFORE the feature would activate. thus requiring the consent of the masses to activate a feature(consensus)
thus like years ago(pre may 2017) core had to propose things and get users onside to want to upgrade and be ready to THEN activate

however things have changed(after sumer 2017) due to the softening of the way things work where by core can now implement stuff without users mass consent (consensus)
because users nodes now dont need to understand new stuff and just let it be accepted into blocks and not reject blocks that have data that nodes do not understand..
things have become softened where it no longer requires a mass of full network nodes to fully validate all bytes of a block...

this trick has allowed core to do things like ad exploits which have caused headaches, congestion and fee peaks and bloat.
and now that all other brands that could have different other proposals outside of cores roadmap, have been REKT before they even got popular on the bitcoin network so no one bothers because they know they will get slammed by an army of cultish idiots screaming at them that they should create an altcoin instead of propose things on the bitcoin network, and how the bitcoin core moderation policy of all discussion platforms and other development has been a closed door to anyone not kissing the core monarchy ring and obeying the core path

learn what consensus did for the network before core softened it.. it will shock you(if you re not doomad) but im starting to think you are too similar in the narratives being verbatim to not be his alt account

The OP and you also are promoting a different network other than Bitcoin. Remember BCH is not Bitcoin.

BCH is an altcoin just like LTC and XMR. I am indeed not happy with the transaction fees and there are lots of people like me. As you can see in the chart I posted earlier, many people who think like me have decided to use Litecoin.

If you (and the OP) don't like BTC or find it expensive like me use something else. Hell, use BCH if you want. Nobody's stopping you. Apparently though, most people decided on LTC.

Why don't you create a thread and educate people on BCH if you like it so much? Why do you think people like LTC more than BCH?

i am not even talking about BCH you idiot.. and stop thinking the answer to everything is "accept cores central governing politics or f**k off to another network"

how about you as a other network adorer move yourself to another network if you love them so much, then us actual bitcoiners can get back to discussing methods of scaling bitcoin.. without your silly other network promotion plans

you have no clue what you speak of and you only want to speak of doomads mantra of moving people to other networks while keeping core devs as a god like central government,, you want bitcoins fees to stay high stay bloated with meme junk and telling people to not transact on bitcoin because the issues affecting bitcoiners becomes promoting tools for your other network you love.

i still find it funny that the actual idiots that promote other networks should be the ones that should move themselves to other networks.. and stop trying to get bitcoiners to be the ones that should leave

actual bitcoiners like me want to sort out the central points of failure that have arisen in the last under a decade era, and get things sorted to actually scale BITCOIN

You want bigger blocks. LTC has bigger blocks. Use LTC, problem solved. Stop being a moron for one second.

BTC is digital gold with small blocks. Accept it and move on.

Here are the choices you got:

a) Digital Cash (LTC)
b) Store of value/Digital Gold (BTC)



c) Keep crying bwaaa Core killed BTC bwaaa why not Core make blockz bigga

^ I feel like you'll always choose c)  ;D

mindrust.. this topic is about BITCOIN and how to scale it in such ways including but not limited to the blocksize
its not a altcoin promotion topic
the solution to scale bitcoin is not to abandon it

YOU want people to abandon bitcoin.. so how about YOU abandon bitcoin because you seem to love other networks so much
take YOUR altcoin recruitment games over to the altcoin forum categories

Does DooMAD sound reasonable too? 


He does not promote BCH.  He is just a big whiny keyboard warrior.  I just cannot believe the fact that he registered in 2012 and still supports these rookie ideas.  In a decentralized network, you cannot force change.  You can only implement change and see who follows you.  If there's a thing we learned from the blocksize war, it's this.

I don't want people to abandon bitcoin. People who can afford to pay them high fees are paying it. People who can't, they don't have much of a choice... They use something else naturally. They don't need my opinion on the subject, they can notice the situation as much as I do.

Do you think Bitcoin hodlers care about it anyway? Seriously. Price is going up, everybody is happy. Except you.

Bitcoin is working as intended, making people rich, killing the USD.

In fact, I decided to DCA on LTC after I saw that chart I posted earlier. It means I am joining them, they ain't joining me.

mindrust, bitcoin does not need high fee's and stifle transaction counts to force fee's even higher..
bitcoin becomes more useful by letting more transactions per block where those extra transactions pay less than now, but where the extra transactions can then collectively total an amount that gives pools a free bonus

EG
instead of
$50 x 4000tx = $200k
there can be with a few code changes to give pools a $200k total bonus(they dont yet even need this amount of bonus)
$11.30 x 17,700tx = $200k
as you can see fee's can become cheaper and more transactions.. .. whilst still being the $200k idiots THINK pools deserve and need
(again for emphases pools do NOT NEED $200k in total fees now or anytime soon)
and these changes come even before scaling the blocksize. and just concern making the blocksize as is more efficient and actually utilised, counted, and validated to meet actual bitcoin purpose properly where every byte literally counts

you wanting to propose strategies of stifling transaction counts upgrades, limiting transactions and make them annoying slow and expensive does not help bitcoin. it only helps do what you now admit to "People who can afford to pay them high fees are paying it. People who can't, they don't have much of a choice... They use something else naturally"
you want bitcoin to be more expensive to transact to recruit people over to other networks by making them think "they dont have much of  choice"

but here is the thing, bitcoiners could have the choice, by scaling bitcoin.. by sorting bitcoins code out and make it useful for the masses and less centrally governed, less pcentral points of failure where by it actually works better then now, and be more open and better like it used to be

the only choice is not to naturally try another network

this topic and hundreds of topics like it are proof that people do want bitcoin to scale up and offer more transactions.. infact there are more bitcoin scaling topics than there are LTC/LN recruitment topics.. which shows people would rather scale bitcoin than abandon it for whatever network you prefer to promote

---

as for medusa, well thats just a doomad alt account, acting too much like doomads cultish self to be a coincidence, its even more plagiarised repeated rhetoric of doomads words to just be an acolyte of his cult.. too much idiocy to even be taken seriously in any way
medusa offers nothing different to any conversation that doomads cult has not already said.

That's true, although the dynamic limit also discourage miner create very relative big block (compared with other recent block). And there are other concern such as block propagation time despite existence of fluffy block (Monero variant of Bitcoin's compact block) and how much it push Monero's node hardware.


FWIW the something else doesn't have to be altcoin. It could be sidechain or layer 2, although usually it's not decentralized and less popular than some altcoin.