With 1mb u need to get only monster fees to run btc sustainable but no masses that can afford these onchain secure txs. Not Bitcoin. U ll give up that business to a few 2nd layer middle men - not Bitcoin.
Speaking of fees, how many users would BSV need to have at BSV's current average fee to match the current fees miners get from BTC? And what makes you think that BSV would be the first choice for people who don't want to pay the fees on the BTC chain? There are thousands of other coins. The only remarkable thing about BSV is the fraudulent clown at the helm trying to convince everyone they're supposedly satoshi. Not exactly a selling point. Beyond that, it's another coin that's slightly above Dogecoin in terms of nodecount. Why should anyone care? And if by some miracle BSV does become popular and start filling blocks, it's going to be a few big companies running what few nodes remain. You will destroy any shred of decentralisation. If u d know how industry is selective at adoption process u will see that legal and compliance is top filter. What is the real clean thing of Bitcoin that is specked up, defined by a 'legal' relvant term sheet for tech and financial documentation? It is scalable in industrial way - even mentioned by Satoshi already. We are stuck here with bottom up 'adoption' and scams that had lead to coins all full of scammers. Go and distill what is the real essence of Bitcoin and let that go viral, uncrippled. It is only about sending p2p cash, for fraction of a cent - stored on a public blockchain - the world needs that new thing and the world is maximum decentralized, no need to be scared of 'central' control as we see from core and their way of dictatorship planning like in communism or kingdom. Markets are free and lead to proper decentralization due to its sheer openess and fragility to any op risk that will break up any dominant corporation after some time ( see Bitmain actually). Everything is well allined, relax at let the original Bitcoin do its work. |
|
|
|
Economic incentives, usability and security level will decide that.
I think we'll see in the coming years that BSV simply isn't sustainable. It's funny that you mention "economic incentives." A deflationary supply with no fee pressure? 1 TB block sizes in the next 2 years? How is that supposed to incentivize miners to secure the chain? It sounds ludicrous. Compared to LN - easy to sustain. Compared to 1megSegshit coin - easy after as well cause lot of business will use BSV also as audit / time stamping layer, the only open scalable blockchain the industries are looking for, and can adopt cause the impl is close to spec - legit as such - and does not (need to) change. LN and other 2nd layer stuff are not 10y old and tested Bitcoin and are at experimental stage at best with poor level of safety for any industrial use and legal implications that make any adoption challenging. You're just dodging the issue, though. It doesn't even matter if everyone in the world wants to use BSV. The entire design is based on the idea of not allowing scarcity of block space. There is no way to pressure fees above zero. How the hell are miners going to be paid? Or do BSV miners just secure the chain out of the goodness of their hearts? BSV is setting itself up to implode when the mining subsidy starts winding down. Not that it matters to Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre. They're just here for the cash grab. Bitcoin 's inflation is going down over the decades. Fees are the incentives for miners and this only works with masses and huge blocks, where all txs pay sub cent amounts but the sum is good enough for miners to run. With 1mb u need to get only monster fees to run btc sustainable but no masses that can afford these onchain secure txs. Not Bitcoin. U ll give up that business to a few 2nd layer middle men - not Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.
I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.
On what possible basis? BSV has ~650 nodes. LN has ~6500 nodes. It's pretty clear which one the market prefers. Economic incentives, usability and security level will decide that. I think we'll see in the coming years that BSV simply isn't sustainable. It's funny that you mention "economic incentives." A deflationary supply with no fee pressure? 1 TB block sizes in the next 2 years? How is that supposed to incentivize miners to secure the chain? It sounds ludicrous. Compared to LN - easy to sustain. Compared to 1megSegshit coin - easy after as well cause lot of business will use BSV also as audit / time stamping layer, the only open scalable blockchain the industries are looking for, and can adopt cause the impl is close to spec - legit as such - and does not (need to) change. LN and other 2nd layer stuff are not 10y old and tested Bitcoin and are at experimental stage at best with poor level of safety for any industrial use and legal implications that make any adoption challenging. |
|
|
|
Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.
I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.
On what possible basis? BSV has ~650 nodes. LN has ~6500 nodes. It's pretty clear which one the market prefers. Economic incentives , usability and security level will decide that. |
|
|
|
|
LN is so useless, same as SW and all the other dev- tries to inject any of their experimental tech will.
Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.
I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
BSV is the real Bitcoin and has the real value of it. So it is money and has best store of value as such.
Well, its lost 50% of its value in the past 2 months. That's quite a feat, given that most other coins were flat in that time period. If that's your idea of a "store of value", you must really hate money. Ur mixing up price and value. Grow up.  How can it be a store of value when its price keeps going down? U re too much in speculation mode. Value comes from usability and stability of its underlying, mainly the base protocol. Legal acceptance is major filter for world wide adoption- one of the killers for all other crap we still see in that speculation bubble. |
|
|
|
BSV is the real Bitcoin and has the real value of it. So it is money and has best store of value as such.
Well, its lost 50% of its value in the past 2 months. That's quite a feat, given that most other coins were flat in that time period. If that's your idea of a "store of value", you must really hate money. Ur mixing up price and value. Grow up. |
|
|
|
BSV is the real Bitcoin and has the real value of it. So it is money and has best store of value as such. It also seems that it has the biggest story of value as well.  |
|
|
|
I can't believe my eyes that this misconception and purposeless hybrid fork is still around. What we need in the cryptocurrency space is cleansing from the trash coins.
There haven't been enough trolling, so it's still there. Or There is so much recognition also due to much trolling, so it's still there.  |
|
|
|
First of all let me make this point clear: There's no Cryptos without Bitcoin
The space largely has two main sides: the tech, blockchain and the money, cryptos. We have all been seeing various projects develop and some are as dumb as saying they'll kill Bitcoin lol. It can't happen (at least now that Bitcoin controls way more than 10+% of the market)
So what all these new projects need to focus on is make sure to promote Bitcoin first. I say so because it is the bigger picture, and the hard truth.
Come to think of it, What type of news didn't we hear about Ripple last year??? But Ripple nearly tumbled until the recent Bitcoin gains helped out. As for fake satoshi, hehee.... his story is funny!! trying to kill Bitcoin??? lol.. that's the dumbest thing to do, and now look at his coin lol
Honestly, the mainstream valuate the whole space by the metrics of Bitcoin and so if you're a developer building anything and seeking mainstream adoption (which we definitely need), then you need to always promote Bitcoin
So in a nutshell, the logic is that, as Bitcoin grows, we all grow together in untiy and strength because Bitcoin is what binds crypto and blockchain mainstream adoption.
So let's stop the hate against Bitcoin and the zeal to kill BTC, you can't do that, you'll rather die and Bitcoin will be living lol without anyone adopting your project hehee. When Bitcoin is up, people will utilize products of the space like crazy.
There's no crypto without Bitcoin
Bitcoin is the new thing. It is unique and many want to copy or modify it. But what is the essence of it, the really new thing in it, that made it run and working at first place? It is the PoW mining txs into the chain - on chain. It is legally specked up in the white paper and define honest mining and the protocol very strictly. Any deviation from that is seen as an alt, experiments and a try to do 'better'. All other crypto experiments have no big new thing are too complex, never can scale, are illegal and will die imo. |
|
|
|
maybe Steem has some kind of pyramid scheme but it works for a long period of time and a lot of people have their blogs at this platform.
A better one is yours.org running on the legit working Bitcoin chain. |
|
|
|
khaos read some code Little secret for you, You are always trusting someone else,
Run a non-mining node and you are trusting the Mining Nodes that you sync with.
Connect to two different block explores and you are trusting the Mining Nodes, they sync with.
Either way , you're trusting the Mining Nodes. 
^ wrong little secret. learn orphan, learn reject, learn consensus, learn honest nodes, learn symbiosis, learn byzantine generals. if you sent me a block i can reject it if it doesnt fit the rules.. i dont blindly accept it if i see out of 8 peers that 6 are showing blockheight 600,000 and 2 are showing blockheight 599,500 im gonna grab data from the 6 nodes that are at 600,000. and then im gonna do my own checks, my own validations and only trust the data i find that is valid i do not just grab the data and pass it on. seriously go read some code or get a better node if all you have is a relay/repeater node (much like fibre) lets word it another way mining nodes are the U.S Fed Mint.. one day they accidently put pink ink into the printers instead of green. and then send out pink bank notes. non minting users dont just accept it. they check the note see its not green and reject it. soon enough mining nodes realise they screwed up and certain serial number range is invalid, they orphan out that serial number pink notes and again start the serial number range using green ink if they carried on with pink ink. shops would just wait for the green bank notes and reject pink notes. because everyone is under the understanding that only green inked notes are tender. you are foolish if you think mining nodes can just mint what they like and users accept it. you really need to do some research. read code.. not reddit/twitter/medium ... i think the context of the medium article your misunderstanding is this in 2009-2011 a "full node" done dozens of jobs in 2011-2012 a "full node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and things like CG miner done a couple jobs in 2013+ a "pool node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and ASIC done a couple jobs in 2013+ a "non mining node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs the misunderstanding is that calling nodes after 2011 a full node.. is less than accurate. because no nodes do the full job list. different things work symbiotically to get the whole list complete but no single node does it all, thus the terminology of "full node" becomes vague but that DOES NOT mean that non-mining nodes do not validate and decide. and does not mean in a 'honest node' consensus network that non-mining nodes are not part of the symbioses. without non mining nodes to be the auditors of mining nodes. people end up having to BLINDLY trust mining nodes. mining nodes without non-mining nodes would then be on a central rampage of doing as they please knowing merchants blindly trust mining nodes. but the reality is bad blocks do get rejected, orphaned by user nodes and if repeat offending active rules the nodes sending out offending rulebreaking data get banned. learn about the symbioses of consensus on a honest node network read some code. not medium/reddit/twitter We can all learn a lot in that interview here https://badcryptopodcast.com/2019/02/20/craig-wright-242/And "honest mining" you can only learn from reading the specs of it, the White Paper. |
|
|
|
"Together we stand - divided we fall" This all BCC BCH BCD BCG BCV BCS drama leads to somewehere where I was afraid it has to lead - divided community is much weaker and weaker. And looking realistically there is no sign of recovery  100% inevitable. no one should be surprised by the outcome. forks of forks are not a sound basis to build something that others will trust. compare how litecoin have conducted themselves to this. it's pitiful. Yeah, initially consensus mechanism in Bitcoin was supposed to be based on higher hashrate and it happened very bad that it was allowed so many forks survived. It would be much better cryptocurrencies with lower hashrate would never survive and to focus all developement on best projects! World do not need thousands of crypto to transfer money... Sure. Good point. So what defines the protocol that an honest miner should follow? Where are the legit specs for? |
|
|
|
Im sticking to running a POP node its the original vision
A node described in the white paper does .... ? It is a miner |
|
|
|
Mmm Hmm... Meanwhile, the average BTC block size has been creeping up again. We may already be on the edge of the next blockalypse.
The first blockalypse never happened. What has happened since December 2017? BCH's market share has plummeted and bitcoin has survived just fine. Un Hunh. And what happened to all that adoption that was building - right up until the point that BTC could not handle the demand? Which of course will be accompanied by ever-lengthening confirmation times, and soaring fees. Once BTC returns to its eventual equilibrium of unusability, where do you think the tx demand is going to go?
Well that's easy: Lightning Network. No. LN cannot onboard enough people fast enough to be a contender. Not to mention all the evil that will be unleashed when the chain does not have the capacity to handle renewals or cashouts. Even if it had the value capacity for meaningful commerce. Or even if it had simple clients. Or the ability to route in a malleable environment of channels coming and going, with users wanting trustless, permissionless, decentralized operation. Wow... I know enough about you to know you, more than the average person, have the skills to do simple deductive reasoning... If lightning doesn't have the ability to onboard people fast enough for OFF CHAIN... then how will BSV be able to confirm that may payments ON CHAIN without centralizing? It takes ONE TX to go off chain and then to do do millions of transactions using that SINGLE off chain TX. Doing everything on chain is an interesting future goal... but it is decades out. (key words "on chain") How can that bitcoin that is written and specked up in the Satoshi Whitpaper AND correctly implemented on purpose be ever centralized? Smtp nodes are only some big entities like gmail gmx ... but that doesn t make smtp centralized by any means. BSV is that smtp analogon by definition , commitment and roadmap. |
|
|
|
Thx. This is massive content and analysis. I m sure way too much to read for most trolls. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
