It is all driven by the block size, and dependent upon how many txs per day the average user makes. Any way you slice it, on chain tx capacity is limited by the block size. And inability to transact on chain also breaks LN - no opens, closes, or repudiation of stale channel state driven theft.
OK but that's never happened. Absolute twaddle. I know you were here in 2017. Have you already driven the Blockapocalyse I from your memory? Too much "champaign" over the skyrocketing fees? Its always "what if" scenarios with you anti-bitcoiners.
Of course it's always "what if" - the "what if" scenarios are the essence of system design. Get the fuck out of here with your "anti-bitcoiner". Why TF do you think I incessantly harp on these BTC weaknesses? It is because I would like BTC to succeed. I don't take this nonstop, most-often ignorant and/or non-substantive abuse because I like it. I am trying to advocate for Bitcoin -- in all its forks -- to be all it can be. Earlier you said "the number of people who will be able to use BTC is hard-capped at a ludicrously low number." This is false on all accounts. If you would have said "the number of transactions per day on chain is hard capped" then I would have been inclined to agree.
OK. I mean, BTC can support a fuckload of people if none of them ever makes a tx. But that's not a usable MoE nor SoV. Not to mention the fact that to even get there will take literally decades. Like forty years for each person alive to make a single tx to buy into the system. Daily tx capacity is highly variable upon the nature of that's day's txs, but it is well south of a million. So there's your hard cap.
I did the math and the tx per day is theoretically 604,800 at the very maximum. We're currently just shy of 400,000. Yes. Well south of a million. And we don't have much headroom today. The next FOMO spike will be aborted due to tx capacity. We may even cap before that can take place. As I queried JJG above: what is the plan to deal with this? There is none being discussed. Two key points you never address are:
1. Encouragement of Lightning adoption will help prevent bitcoin from coming close to this, and the technology continues to progress and improve with or without your permission.
Use of LN requires on-chain txs. Once the chain is full, LN breaks. We're bearing down on Blockpocolypse II, and there is still no relief valve. Not to mention the relative irrelevance of LN in general. The average BTC on-chain tx is currently around $20,000.00. What's LN channel max value again? What percentage of Bitcoiners operate an LN node? What percentage of LN txs succeed on first submission? How much time does a typical LN-er devote to managing their LN node? Nay, LN is nowhere near being a suitable replacement for good old Bitcoin. It may get there some day. Far in the future. 2. The block size is limited for a specific reason: having a huge blockchain results in increasing centralization. How many people in this thread run their own node? One? Two? The blockchain is already too unwieldy for your average bitcoin enthusiast to run a full node. Making it even bigger will insure that an even smaller proportion of people will be able to run a node.
Oh yes. The 'buhbut mah decentralization' canard. For the eleventy-bajillionth time, so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the system as a whole. But let's set that aside, as that's another twenty-page discussion in and of itself. Let's ask the question 'what percentage of LN users also operate a so-called 'node'?' Of course BCH and SV don't have this problem, because their blocks remain tiny and unfilled.
How quaint of you to claim that, when SV has processed multiple blocks larger than 100MB. That's kind of an aside, however, as the entire point is to have capacity to accommodate the demand. Which is the economic model that nurtured Bitcoin until Blockstream threw out all the sane devs. |
|
|
|
You contribute nothing to the conversation. There is a question to bitcoinPsycho upon the table, which s/he seems to be dodging. One that relates directly to his/her reply to my point.
Meantime, nutildah charges in blustering irrelevancy. As if s/he doesn't have the capacity for determining what the topic is. You must be so much fun at parties. /s
Don't pretend you're actually contributing anything of value to this forum. That's the biggest farce you have to offer. There's plenty of altcoins up higher than BCH. You can thank BTC, aka bitcoin, for the increase. Also, who cares if BCH is up however much in the past however long? It's still a shadow of its former self. As for the recent rise helping the case of your 4-5 month old "prediction," everybody can be right about anything given a long enough time frame. You blew the time frame of the prediction you were referencing. Don't pretend you are right now. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, you'll continue to be wrong in the future. Hey nutildah - which would you rather have: a) $195; or b) $337.99 ? |
|
|
|
IRONY
"flawed pale imitation"
Hey bitcoinPsycho - which of the following are closer to the original design of the Bitcoin protocol as designed by Satoshi: 1) BTC; or 2) BCH Hmm? Sorry I don't do religion. Tech evolves. No one man or woman have all the answers It ain't religion, it's a simple 2-choice question. Afraid to answer it, bitcoinPsycho?To reiterate, BTC is but a flawed pale imitation of Satoshi's system, while Bitcoin Cash hews more closely to that original genius design. <<blah blah blah>> You contribute nothing to the conversation. There is a question to bitcoinPsycho upon the table, which s/he seems to be dodging. One that relates directly to his/her reply to my point. Meantime, nutildah charges in blustering irrelevancy. As if s/he doesn't have the capacity for determining what the topic is. You must be so much fun at parties. /s I must admit I have not fully read the satoshi white paper so will not be able to answer your question . Yet you feel compelled to publicly expound upon things of which you are completely ignorant. Whatevs. |
|
|
|
Serious @jbreher, I've never seen somebody be such a vicious asshole and so wrong at the same time. And that's saying a lot for this place.
His whole premise is nobody will use bitcoin because its too crowded. That's just plain fucking stupid.
No, my whole premise is that the number of people who will be able to use BTC is hard-capped by the block size. I've been absolutely clear about this for years now. And you're so blinded by dogma that you can't even read what I am actually typing. The number of people who will be able to use BTC is hard-capped at a ludicrously low number. Those unable to get in will go elsewhere. If for no other reason, because they have no other choice. What's the hard cap number you had in mind? It is all driven by the block size, and dependent upon how many txs per day the average user makes. Any way you slice it, on chain tx capacity is limited by the block size. And inability to transact on chain also breaks LN - no opens, closes, or repudiation of stale channel state driven theft. Daily tx capacity is highly variable upon the nature of that's day's txs, but it is well south of a million. So there's your hard cap. |
|
|
|
The guy's a billionaire and he's taking a mortgage? Saving a couple of percent when you expect your liquid assets to skyrocket actually makes quite a bit of sense. |
|
|
|
Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness.
We will cross that bridge when we get there. If this price pump continues, we could get there next week. Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon under discussion. You are fucking ridiculous on this point, jbreher. Dumbass BIG BLOCKERS have been acting chicken little on this topic since at least late 2015, and they have been wrong, wrong wrong.. except to the extent to which they have engaged in some spam attacks to attempt to make it look like their wrong chicken little speculations were coming true. And, get the fuck out of here with your exaggeration that there is no plan in BTC.. because with segwit and other tweaks including lightning network, batching and some other technical mumbo jumbo stuff, BTC transactions are getting processed... and fees also will adjust to help to channel and incentivize transactions too... so fuck off in your attempting to act like there is neither progress in bitcoin or that there is some kind of supposed emergency situation in bitcoin that justifies a block increase - which is still not necessary, even though you and your dumb BIG blocker buddies keep trying to present such nonsense solutions to increase the block size limits as if they were "obvious solutions," and they are not.. they are just stupid.. and counter to any necessary solution.. you want to break bitcoin like you and your buddies broke your impotent bcash(es) variants? You claim to be a bitcoiner, but I have to question you with your stubborn continued persistence spouting out such repetitive nonsense that has been debunked over and over and over in the past 3.5 years. There is no there there.. so focus your lil selfie.  Once the blocks are full, no additional people can open a LN channel. Nobody can close an LN channel. (Not without out-paying those txs already waiting to be built into a block).
you are speculating about something that has never happened.. Even in December 2017/January 2018 (when your bitmain buddies and Roger Ver had enough money to engage in their spam attack), transactions still went through, as long as higher fees were paid... so if the fees might go up during such clogging periods. By the way, funny how bitmain is now broke.. ver might not be doing so well.. and maybe still hoping for calvin ayere to keep haning out with you other social pariahs. Nobody can post evidence of stolen channel funds as a result of counterparty posting an earlier channel state. Nobody can get BTC into or out of exchanges. ...
Let's see how it plays out... sounds like you are making shit up, for the moment.. so let's see if it becomes a BIGGER issue that is does not get resolved... Lots of smart people working and submitting ideas in bitcoin core, so they are likely to continue figuring out a variety of things as they already have been with the passage of time.. And maybe you should be discussing these technical matters in another thread, anyhow? you fuck with attempts at technical mumbo jumbo, here. All y'all are hanging your hopes on a promise that has no chance to deliver its stated benefits.
You and your BIG BLOCKER nutjob buddies have already proven yourselves to be inclined towards exaggerations about supposed dire outcomes, and likely going to happen again... with exaggerated points like you are making here. Sure, LN will have important use cases. But at the cost of crippling the base layer? Collective delusion.
Of course, LN will have important use cases.. at least you recognize that aspect.. and if you think that there some kind of crippling then get the fuck out of here. Don't use lightning then nor build upon it, and go over to your shitcoin (I mean various bcashes) projects to whine about how horrible bitcoin is, while bitcoin is going to leave those bcashes crappies in the dust in terms of innovations, development, adoption and even ongoing price performance.. Jbreher should be joining his BCHABC - BTC-SV friends at r/btc. He can shit on Segwit/LN and Core dev. 24/7. He will be loved over there but here he's just a moron. And in charges Paashaas with yet another attack fully devoid of any substantive rebuttal to any points made. |
|
|
|
Serious @jbreher, I've never seen somebody be such a vicious asshole and so wrong at the same time. And that's saying a lot for this place.
His whole premise is nobody will use bitcoin because its too crowded. That's just plain fucking stupid.
No, my whole premise is that the number of people who will be able to use BTC is hard-capped by the block size. I've been absolutely clear about this for years now. And you're so blinded by dogma that you can't even read what I am actually typing. The number of people who will be able to use BTC is hard-capped at a ludicrously low number. Those unable to get in will go elsewhere. If for no other reason, because they have no other choice. |
|
|
|
Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness.
We will cross that bridge when we get there. If this price pump continues, we could get there next week. Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon under discussion. And, get the fuck out of here with your exaggeration that there is no plan in BTC.. OK, JJG. Tell me what the plan is to deal with the fact that once blocks are persistently full, then average fees rise uncontrollably, average wait times raise uncontrollably, LN channel openings and closings get economically prohibitive, and number of new entrants gets hard-capped. What is the plan, JJG - what is the plan? |
|
|
|
Do you think that these neato 4-year cycles would continue forever?
Nope. Only until the world at large has an understanding of how to use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Jbreher you're a Bcash boy, I haven't followed it. I have a Trezor with a few bch, how do i sell both bch and bsv?
Don't know Trezor, so unsure. I assume it is implemented via hierarchical deterministic wallet addresses? If Trezor does not support directly, you can use your seed within Electrum or similar to get at your private keys. Import private keys containing BCH and/or BSV into wallets that support each relevant chain. Spend from there - perhaps to some exchange that will allow you trading pairs for something in which you are interested. I understand some exchanges may support splitting of your addresses for you, but I see no need nor benefit for that myself. You probably want to tx each side of the fork for each given key as close in time as possible. |
|
|
|
Love the rally, hate the fact that two forks are up much more. This is bizarre.
Is there something to worry about here? No, check out their mempools. Some see the ability to include all txs within the next block (e.g., the 100MB+ blocks on BSV) as a positive trait. If you really want your mempool to escalate uncontrollably, why not get behind Dashjr's crazy 300KB proposal? |
|
|
|
... Incidentally, while BTC is up 14+% in the last 24 hours, BCH is up over 27% in the same time frame.
... With "low" stagnant BTC prices bitmain doesn't have the profits to prop up bcash, so bcash was being priced to go bye bye into the night. Unfortunately BTC going up gives bitmain fatter margins to continue keeping its pet project afloat, so bcash shorts got burned this time around. Gambling on shitcoins being leveraged BTC will burn a lot of "traders". Interesting theory. Nothing to back it up, but whatevs. Oh did I say BCH was up 27% in the last 24 hours. I was wrong. It is up over 45% in the last 24 hours. |
|
|
|
I'm calling Bitcoin post count parity some time in 2024. Whether that Bitcoin be BTC, BCH, or SV is an open question.
I think the next FOMO pile-in is going to make evident to the world the weaknesses of the Core-ian approach to scaling. The other forks (hewing more closely to Satoshi's inspired design) will be there to pick up the slack.
Incidentally, while BTC is up 14+% in the last 24 hours, BCH is up over 27% in the same time frame.
Yes, SV is lagging at 11+%. ::sigh::
Oh my fucking god. You are either sick or delusional to still be having those kinds of illusions of grandeur in respect to those two shitty-ass bcash projects. Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness.1st bit..lol..literally. Middle part just opinion. This last bit is out right lies. I will just follow with this. "You are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity." "Farewell." ::sigh:: Still unanswered. |
|
|
|
I'm calling Bitcoin post count parity some time in 2024. Whether that Bitcoin be BTC, BCH, or SV is an open question.
I think the next FOMO pile-in is going to make evident to the world the weaknesses of the Core-ian approach to scaling. The other forks (hewing more closely to Satoshi's inspired design) will be there to pick up the slack.
Incidentally, while BTC is up 14+% in the last 24 hours, BCH is up over 27% in the same time frame.
Yes, SV is lagging at 11+%. ::sigh::
Oh my fucking god. You are either sick or delusional to still be having those kinds of illusions of grandeur in respect to those two shitty-ass bcash projects. Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness. That's simple. First of all, your scenario has never happened. The blockchain has never been "clogged to the point of uselessness." I would argue that $100 tx fees and days-long waits are such a state of reduced usefulness that 'useless' is an apt descriptor. We were there before, and we are once again trending there. But let's say BTC again skyrockets and the median transaction fee goes up to $10. This means people will be incentivized to use Lightning and do as much LN transacting as possible before a channel must be closed.
How is that going to happen when new players are unable to get an LN channel opening tx mined into a block? 1ML tells me that the current average channel value is 0.027 BTC - $144.00 USD. Who is going to pay $100 to be able to transact $144? Nevermind the next $100 to close the channel again. Yes, in time this channel value will increase. But it is currently hard-capped, right? During the entirety of the bear market Lightning has been preparing itself for exactly such an occurrence, all the while its critics were talking about how it will harm miners and is unsafe to use. Meanwhile its grown in leaps and bounds, and will continue to grow the higher BTC goes.
Yep, growing by leaps and bounds. 1ML reports total network fundage at about $5.5M USD. If one could aggregate all the funds in the entire LN (though of course one cannot), one would be able to buy a single house in most any market. But of course, that would exhaust the entire LN capacity. And leave no home buying power for any other LN participant. I mean, kudos on the growth, but LN needs further orders of magnitude to become something significant. Incidentally, while BTC is up 14+% in the last 24 hours, BCH is up over 27% in the same time frame.
BCH and SV aren't rising on their own merits. Sez you. Put yourself in the shoes of the average business owner who is still skeptical of cryptocurrency and is only beginning to consider adopting BTC for their business... Then along comes this chatter about how BCH and SV are better, and they look into it, only to discover that now they have to learn how to use and install 2 more wallets that aren't compatible with BTC, in the hopes that they will have customers who want to pay in BCH and SV.
Always amazes me how so many who have obviously never been responsible for running a business seem to feel qualified to pontificate upon what a business owner might do. Which is easier for a biz owner to implement - a BCH wallet (or a link to a BCH payment processor), or their own LN node? |
|
|
|
Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness.
We will cross that bridge when we get there. If this price pump continues, we could get there next week. Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon under discussion. Once the blocks are full, no additional people can open a LN channel. Nobody can close an LN channel. (Not without out-paying those txs already waiting to be built into a block). Nobody can post evidence of stolen channel funds as a result of counterparty posting an earlier channel state. Nobody can get BTC into or out of exchanges. ... All y'all are hanging your hopes on a promise that has no chance to deliver its stated benefits. Sure, LN will have important use cases. But at the cost of crippling the base layer? Collective delusion. |
|
|
|
Except, of course, that exchange trades are an example of Layer 2 trades. I'm not making an argument, I'm answering your question. You asked what Layer 2 solutions existed for the other forks of Bitcoin, so for the sake of answering your explicit question...
Chicken Egg problem. What came first. The money or the bank. I do not respect your answer. Do you like XRP too ? 'Respect my answer'? Get the fuck out of here with your 'respect'. You asked, I answered truthfully. No, I don't like XRP. I don't particularly like exchanges either, though they do have their purposes. And one of those is as a Layer 2. Lightning is replete with security tradeoffs. Worth it for some, intolerable for others.
Name one tradeoff worse than Layer 1. The potential to have your funds stolen. Near-instant? Statistically. Amazing the things that work with five-nine's determinism when blocks are big enough to swallow all transactions generated.
Gobbledygook. Senseless. Your inability to grasp simple cause and effect concepts is duly noted. BTC doesn't do this, with Lightning.
You are wrong. You try to be evil on Lightning, and counter party is fully rewarded and you lose everything. Incentive to play nice. And now with the topic swerve. The quote above has to do with flawless subsecond execution of all desired economic txs. Which LN does not support. It may some day, though I doubt it. I don't deny that LN provides and incentive to be honest. However, it also exposes the simple possibility to be dishonest. And the weaknesses under which such dishonesty will sometimes be rewarded. Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness.
Hyperbole. Your inability to grasp simple cause and effect concepts is duly noted. |
|
|
|
I lost 11.87 BTC with in this fiasco. How could I report it?
Interesting you now make this query... Somewhere upthread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337523.msg49049300#msg49049300), I listed the contents of a letter I sent to the sentencing judge. While the wheels of justice (!) turn slowly, it happens that I was contacted by an FBI Field Agent on 2019 Mar 22. Evidently, my letter had been forwarded from the court to the bureau, and it was this agent's task to verify that I was indeed a wronged party. If I understand correctly, all creditors of Montroll's various sham businesses should have been contacted by the court for victim statements. However, some (!?) parties (e.g., myself) slipped through the cracks. They were not aware that Montroll defrauded me through WeExchange. It may be too late to get heard by the court on Montroll's sentencing. However, there is a route of which I have been informed for reporting yourself as a victim. One can engage the process by contacting: SDNY Victim and Witness Coordinator United States Attorney's Office One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 1-866-874-8900 https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/programs/victim-witness-servicesI know they mentioned in the report that authorities in other countries have been contacted, but does anybody know if anything else can be done if outside of the US (Australia)? The SDNY Victim and Witness Coordinator probably could at least answer the 'can be done' question. |
|
|
|
IRONY
"flawed pale imitation"
Hey bitcoinPsycho - which of the following are closer to the original design of the Bitcoin protocol as designed by Satoshi: 1) BTC; or 2) BCH Hmm? Sorry I don't do religion. Tech evolves. No one man or woman have all the answers It ain't religion, it's a simple 2-choice question. Afraid to answer it, bitcoinPsycho?To reiterate, BTC is but a flawed pale imitation of Satoshi's system, while Bitcoin Cash hews more closely to that original genius design. <<blah blah blah>> You contribute nothing to the conversation. There is a question to bitcoinPsycho upon the table, which s/he seems to be dodging. One that relates directly to his/her reply to my point. Meantime, nutildah charges in blustering irrelevancy. As if s/he doesn't have the capacity for determining what the topic is. You must be so much fun at parties. /s Incidentally, with BTC at $337.99, you're starting to look like 'that guy'. : After all this time this thread is still quite remarkably mediocre. There is literally nothing other than name calling. How can some of the world's biggest alts inspire nothing beyond worthless dribbles?
Well, it likely has a lot to do with the fact that about half of this thread's participants are ignorant pikers who come here merely to fling clueless shit around the room. Right, like you pressuring noobs to buy BCH when it was at $195... That was some real astute analysis right there, Soros. "Pressuring"? "Soros"? You're being cringeworthy again, nutella. Incidentally, BCH up over 17% last 24 hours. You told somebody to buy BCH at $195, saying they would regret buying it later at a higher price. Your exact words were "Don't be that guy." BCH is still down 19% since your call, despite today's gains. |
|
|
|
Jbreher doesn't care about decentralisation, security and Nakamoto consensus it's just tunnel vision terrabyte blocks without understanding the consequences.
Well, you're wrong on all counts. Let's discuss this a while, Paashaas. Let's start with: What is your definition of decentralization? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
