Umm... yeah. Same formula, different result. I must have miskeyed something. I likely had used '*' where I shoulda used '^'. Numbers check out as per hypothesis.
Edited upthread.
Mea culpa.

Hmm. One of us is wrong. Of course, decades after my Applied Math degree, I can hardly add any longer.

edit: OK. You were right. I must have miskeyed something.

1.04^365=379.6 1,648,803
379.6 1,648,803*6660.03=$2,528,147 10,981,079,343/BTC
I wouldn't kick it outta bed for eating crackers.

(edit: corrected figures as per strikeout and underline)

I have thought about that. Today, that is indeed the case. Or even maybe longer - as 32MB is the currently supported max, which is subject to miners' decisions to create blocks smaller than max.

Which is, of course, why there has been discussion within the BCH development community -- for as long as there has been a BCH -- on other orthogonal approaches to scaling.

So while true today, it will be false for some value of 'tomorrow'.

In the meantime, BCH is not suiciding itself for the sake of some illusory benefit of 'decentralization' along some axis that is entirely irrelevant.

Indeed. It is quite beyond the pale to delete posts of users not running afoul of any posting standards. Offensive, really.

Another news flash: miners run nodes. Indeed, in the design of Bitcoin, nodes are miners. But nevertheless, whether or not a miner chooses not to run a non-mining validating entity (I suppose this is what you mean when you improperly use the term 'node') has zero to do with the fact that the miners enforce their rules and their rules only.


Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.


Already answered. Those of the miners themselves. As per design.

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

Dave? Hal? WTF!?

Hmm. I guess you know more about my past postings than do I. Link?

Schnorr can obviously reduce the size of txs that have multiple elements. I wouldn't say that is 'nothing'. If this be shown to be a reversal of a previously held opinion, then so be it.

Of course, my final opinion would be driven by an analysis of not merely the benefits of Schnorr, but also its costs.

edit: Oh - I see you've added the link. Thank you. I shall quote:


True enough. If you wish to send every person on earth a single Bitcoin tx (e.g., perhaps to open an LN channel), it will take on the order of three decades. And Schnorr indeed does nothing to alleviate that. It is a true statement, and it is not identical to "Schnorr signatures would do nothing to alleviate the scaling issue".

Your assertion is shown to be false.

I don't know why you'd think that. I don't believe I have previously espoused an opinion on Schnorr sigs.

Haha! Fine. Let's play.

Dear HML - please cite the white paper with evidence for your assertions that:
1) "the miners were never intended on being a separate group from the users"
2) "Satoshi didn’t foresee ASICs"


Hint:  you can’t, because it’s not there. Period.

As for 1), the material on SPV is normative proof that Satoshi was intending to enable non-mining users.
As for 2), if you can't derive from the white paper that units that are 'better' at hashing will be 'more successful' at mining, I don't know what to say.


As per design.

No. Kind of stupid though.

Though I feel my reply to HairyMacLairy may have been too subtle. HML's statements were either ignorance under pretext of authority, or outright lies. I'm hoping for the first. And that HML will learn the truth from my reply.

Whatever you think about whether or not Satoshi should be considered as authoritative, quite clearly he intended that not all would mine, and that ASICs would be employed. Whether or not intentional, HML's statements were demonstrably false.

Quite frankly, your conflating of a religious mandate to correction of fact just marks you as an unthinking troll provocateur. I somehow expected better from you.

“The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don’t generate.”
     - sn


“At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.”
    - sn

Of course he didn't. Roger had fuck-all to do with the creation of Bitcoin Cash. He climbed onboard only after the fork.

Word.


WordWord.

News flash: they do.


Apply brain. The question answers itself.

Are you trying to obliquely deny that non-mining validating entities are subject to Sybil attack?

What a strange assertion. Did Roger somehow reach out across the network and screw with your investment? What is the mechanism by which he accomplished this nefarious attack?


Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built. Of course, this could be a rough proxy for signaling of preference of economic power. Too bad this signaling is subject to Sybilization into meaninglessness.
 

BitPico's 'attack' fell flat on its face due to programming errors, and they ignorantly attributed their failure to 'centralization'.
Haha. Nice try.
I'm sure we'll get to the stress test when they learn how to format a valid Bitcoin transaction.

Of course, a fundamental mistake is the errant premise that Bitcoin Cash somehow belongs to Jihan and Roger (see "their network" above).

Another mistake is the odd dogma that non-mining validating entities have any effect on the network itself. The only power such non-mining validating entities have is to isolate themselves from the blockchain being built. Of course, this could be a rough proxy for signaling of preference of economic power. Too bad this signaling is subject to Sybilization into meaninglessness.
 

BitPico's 'attack' fell flat on its face due to programming errors, and they ignorantly attributed their failure to 'centralization'.
Haha. Nice try.
I'm sure we'll get to the stress test when they learn how to format a valid Bitcoin transaction.

Prep.

pfft. BitcoinUserUnaffected.png

Thanks for that link, jojo69 - the narrative of the AK build was hysterical. 'Plowshares into swords' indeed!