We've had this discussion already, haven't we.
::sigh:: Indeed, we have. Yet you continue to re-engage. You don't have any right to defend any bcash bashing here. This thread is bitcoin, not bcash, so stop trying to assert that you are on equal grounds when you continue to support a bitcoin attack vector. Luv ya, JJG. Now fuck right off. Hey Jbear I got a great deal for you (limited time offer). If you swap all of your remaining Bitcoin for SV you will immediately get a 45x return. And that’s not all, you will have the satisfaction of devoting your financial resources to the network that represents Satoshi’s Vision TM. How amazing is that? It would be the strongest endorsement you could give, and an opportunity to show us minimalists the way. Go on, lead by example ! How is that in any way _you_ having a deal for _me_? The way any rational person would see it, you are a totally disinterested party merely making a statement to troll me. Congrats. I replied. Everybody merit HairyMaclairy for the successful troll job, in order to show solidarity with the troll job. I'll start. |
|
|
|
|
So who's been prepping for Proof of Keys?
|
|
|
|
Scammer Roger must be crying by now   Refusing an offer by tweeting about it seems like a pretty unprofessional and dick move, unless there are other factors in play. In all fairness, Ver made the offer in a vlog. Somehow, I doubt Roger is crying over it. $1.25 million can buy a lot of offshore coding power. Should someone be able to provide a suitable design specification. |
|
|
|
We've had this discussion already, haven't we.
::sigh:: Indeed, we have. Yet you continue to re-engage. You don't have any right to defend any bcash bashing here. This thread is bitcoin, not bcash, so stop trying to assert that you are on equal grounds when you continue to support a bitcoin attack vector. Luv ya, JJG. Now fuck right off. |
|
|
|
yeah, i lost my only chance to buy cheap bch at $92
Yup! BCH price was going up very fast, i missed the chance to buy at below $100 Of course, next week you may be looking back thinking 'I should have bought when it was below $300'. Don't be that guy. Aged badly? Admittedly. Though tomorrow is another day. |
|
|
|
We had an explosion of whizbangery a decade ago. We had not come close to riding that to its natural conclusion before wizards that thought they knew better perverted the system.
Oh well, devs gotta dev.
I thought you were a dev. Nah he's just a fucking hack. ...aaand such is the level of discourse to which our beloved Torque aspires. ::mwah:: |
|
|
|
L2 solutions are meant to take care of transaction costs, if/when they become unbearable. Which, in a world devoid of mempool spam by Bitmain and their minions, won't happen before massive adoption.
Massive adoption cannot happen -- LN cannot onboard more than the population of one small city per day, due to the anemic BTC block weight. How many millions will it take to reach 'massive adoption'? Multiple thousands. First of all, ~200K/day is still more than ALL current btc users in just 6mo. I was responding directly to the 'massive adoption' challenge. Demonstrably, LN is incapable of onboarding 'massive adoption' due to the fact that the hard cap on blocksize is a hard cap on the number of people that can open a channel per unit time. Second, there are/will be technical solutions as we progress.
We really don't need technical whizbangery when simple block size increase suffices. I know that i am not going to change your mind about this, but, still...sometimes 'whizbangery' is needed. We had an explosion of whizbangery a decade ago. We had not come close to riding that to its natural conclusion before wizards that thought they knew better perverted the system. Oh well, devs gotta dev. I thought you were a dev. You're right. I were a dev. Another field, however. I hope I have the wisdom for not poking things that are already perfect for their intended task. If not, then certainly the wisdom to not make gratuitous changes that result in loss of positive attributes. |
|
|
|
L2 solutions are meant to take care of transaction costs, if/when they become unbearable. Which, in a world devoid of mempool spam by Bitmain and their minions, won't happen before massive adoption.
Massive adoption cannot happen -- LN cannot onboard more than the population of one small city per day, due to the anemic BTC block weight. How many millions will it take to reach 'massive adoption'? Multiple thousands. First of all, ~200K/day is still more than ALL current btc users in just 6mo. I was responding directly to the 'massive adoption' challenge. Demonstrably, LN is incapable of onboarding 'massive adoption' due to the fact that the hard cap on blocksize is a hard cap on the number of people that can open a channel per unit time. Second, there are/will be technical solutions as we progress.
We really don't need technical whizbangery when simple block size increase suffices. I know that i am not going to change your mind about this, but, still...sometimes 'whizbangery' is needed. We had an explosion of whizbangery a decade ago. We had not come close to riding that to its natural conclusion before wizards that thought they knew better perverted the system. Oh well, devs gotta dev. |
|
|
|
We've had this discussion already, haven't we.
::sigh:: Indeed, we have. Yet you continue to re-engage. L2 solutions are meant to take care of transaction costs, if/when they become unbearable. Which, in a world devoid of mempool spam by Bitmain and their minions, won't happen before massive adoption.
Massive adoption cannot happen -- LN cannot onboard more than the population of one small city per day, due to the anemic BTC block weight. How many millions will it take to reach 'massive adoption'? Multiple thousands. Several solutions are being developed to batch the opening of multiple channels in one transaction. Tell me - how do many individuals make their channel openings part of the same tx? How did bcash plan to solve the problem? With a larger highway? It's a non solution, bloating the blockchain linearly with the number*size (not the monetary amount) of transactions. This would have made it impossible to keep bitcoin alive on user-maintained full nodes.
Bald assertion devoid of supporting evidence. As to blockchain bloat, not much evidence's needed at all. It's simple arithmetic. Yet you show none? As to the impossiblity (or extreme unease) of keeping a full node*, it's just a tad less simple to work out the mass storage and bandwidth required.
Neither Moore's nor Nielsen's so-called 'laws' have yet run their course. Back when the founder acquiesced to a block size cap of 1MB, computing power, storage capacity, and network bandwidth were drastically smaller than today. |
|
|
|
L2 solutions are meant to take care of transaction costs, if/when they become unbearable. Which, in a world devoid of mempool spam by Bitmain and their minions, won't happen before massive adoption.
Massive adoption cannot happen -- LN cannot onboard more than the population of one small city per day, due to the anemic BTC block weight. How many millions will it take to reach 'massive adoption'? Multiple thousands. First of all, ~200K/day is still more than ALL current btc users in just 6mo. I was responding directly to the 'massive adoption' challenge. Demonstrably, LN is incapable of onboarding 'massive adoption' due to the fact that the hard cap on blocksize is a hard cap on the number of people that can open a channel per unit time. Second, there are/will be technical solutions as we progress.
We really don't need technical whizbangery when simple block size increase suffices. just look at Ethereum ...
I don' know nuttin' 'bout birthin' no Ethereums. Ain't nobody gots time fo' that. |
|
|
|
If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?
No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction. <<...reasonable stuff..>> Sure - options are good. But to force everything onto a side chain, by stifling the ability to transact freely onchain, is a net negative. |
|
|
|
BTC survived pretty well for being in an apocalypse.
Yup - went from routine greater than 85% dominance down to less than a third. Such success. |
|
|
|
L2 solutions are meant to take care of transaction costs, if/when they become unbearable. Which, in a world devoid of mempool spam by Bitmain and their minions, won't happen before massive adoption.
Massive adoption cannot happen -- LN cannot onboard more than the population of one small city per day, due to the anemic BTC block weight. How many millions will it take to reach 'massive adoption'? Multiple thousands. How did bcash plan to solve the problem? With a larger highway? It's a non solution, bloating the blockchain linearly with the number*size (not the monetary amount) of transactions. This would have made it impossible to keep bitcoin alive on user-maintained full nodes.
Bald assertion devoid of supporting evidence. |
|
|
|
The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?
This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also. BTC also had problems filling blocks. All the way up to the scaleapocalypse. We know how this story ends. |
|
|
|
Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.
Haha. Thats.... cute. The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently. And was hungry for more. In minutes. Better than 480 tx/s, yo. Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network. Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand. The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in? But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up. Well, we don't yet know if the system can handle that sort of sustained throughput. We do know that the next block was propagated about five minutes later (luck of the draw), and the system happily linked it to the >64MB block. So we have some preliminary evidence that it may. And we know that -- contrary to the claims of core -- nodes can indeed handle blocks larger than 4MB. That is, if the protocol supports it, and the implementation does not contain any self-imposed bottlenecks (such as a naive mutitasking model). The probing at the limits has not come to a conclusion. More developments are expected. |
|
|
|
I guess that is a matter of perspective. Is there a need to demonstrate capacity?
We already know segwit fails miserably at a tiny fraction of that load.
Fees would definitely rise, but I'm not sure that's a miserable failure. The purpose of Segwit wasn't to increase tx/s capacity. Sorry. I shorthanded. I didn't mean segwit the incremental protocol change. I meant the current core protocol set. I subbed 'segwit' for Bitcoin Segwit. That blockchain is incapable of handling a mere fraction of that load. The point was to establish a building block for exponential off-chain scaling.
Fair enough, but it is smoke and mirrors... If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?
No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction. |
|
|
|
Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.
Haha. Thats.... cute. The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently. And was hungry for more. In minutes. Better than 480 tx/s, yo. Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network. Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand. |
|
|
|
BCH will never be valued higher than BTC. BCH is dependent on BTC for its valuation. If BTC dies, BCH will die with it.
Bald assertion unsupported by evidence. |
|
|
|
Probably not. Why would it? The ABC chain enjoys a healthy dev ecosystem, with multiple competing clients working. The dissolution of the paid team for one of these implementations will likely have a negligible effect upon the coin. |
|
|
|
Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.
Haha. Thats.... cute. The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently. And was hungry for more. In minutes. Better than 480 tx/s, yo. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
