The proposed 128MB block size update tops out ~896 transactions per second. Which if all of the blocks were full would require 6 TB of hard drive space per year. Even a 1 GB block would only achieve ~7168 transactions per second, Which if all of the 1 GB blocks were full would require ~53 TB of hard drive space per year.
Exactly what Block Size is supposed to achieve the above 2,600,000 transactions per second?Or are they also modifying the block speed?FYI: For the record, I am also not Satoshi, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night.  The chart in the link states 2,600,000 tx per seconds would require 360GB blocks. That's ~19 PB per year if all of the blocks were full. If a transaction fee of 1 sat per byte was obtained, the block would yield 3600 BCH in fees. If BCH was only worth $100 USD, that would be 360K USD per block. If a pool only had 10 % of the hash rate and charged a 1% fee, that would be ~50K per day in fees. That would be $18,250,000 per year. That should be enough to cover the cost of 19 PB of storage, and other costs. a lots of require blocks. BCH will not $100 and BCH price will hit $1000 , today BTC price $6900 and keep going up , i sure when btc price break $10000 , bch price break $800, too. If BCH was actually handling over 2 million tx per second, it would probably be worth much much more. However, I deliberately used ultraconservative figures. I personally doubt BCH will ever see that kind of transaction volume. But I guess BCH supporters can dream. If anyone would only sit and 'doubt' - sure - nothing will happen. Also not after 18 months.  |
|
|
|
And so they are going to do it again? Shouldn't be surprising, its easy money of course forking their own will once again give them more coins. They have the freedom of course so they can fork it forever and cash flows still even if they do it a hundred times. There are certainly bigger fish to fry than forking, if they try to look at ETH, it certainly is a big threat so what they might have to get busy with is a smart contract.
- https ://coingeek.com/upcoming-network-upgrade-smart-contracts-bitcoin-cash/ - https ://developer.bitcoin.com/wormhole.html And only the wormhole might need changes to the base protocol. So what is more risky ? |
|
|
|
Anyway. BCH is the hottest Bitcoin. No need for any LN. There is no need for Wormhole either. Just say no to ABC hardfork. BCH does not need canonical transaction ordering at this time. We see lots of ideas coming into BCH, because other projects do not allow, esp at base protocol level. It is all about turning the software dev driven process into a proper business dev and risk / reward driven process. The real problem of the Bitcoin base protocol is, that it has two parts. A simple technical and a complex economical one. So with this, lots of issues needs to be resolved and most of you just cannot on a testnet level at all. Software devs needs to be more humble, economic / business devs needs to be more prominent and clear, since the tech is only here to help and make business processes more effective, not the other way around. If the base protocol is simple and stable enough, all sorts of devs can build on top of the stable underlying = electronic cash! |
|
|
|
Anyway. BCH is the hottest Bitcoin. No need for any LN. |
|
|
|
I assume ABC and nChain will go their seperate ways. Anyone have any information on this?
Long time to go... miners might start signaling stuff. Lets see. |
|
|
|
Not that I m bored these days, but I 'll happily watch that - would it come in with an UASF ? Since a miner vote might be totally irrelevant for that altcoin? What white paper will it follow btw? |
|
|
|
It's not really being used by anybody for anything
Are you shamelessly lying, or just willfully ignorant, nutildah? [<<blah blah blah>> (paraphrased)] I will just point out here that merely a single use of BCH for merely a single purpose makes your blanket statement perfectly and completely false. I suppose you can consider speculation a use if you must. You got me. But so long as this lying douchebag has a voice, your coin has a serious credibility issue: https://www.ccn.com/satoshis-vision-craig-wright-to-launch-bch-node-to-restore-original-bitcoin-protocol/If Wright cared about anything other than his own ego, he would simply step away from the limelight and go silent. Actually, BitCoin cash seeks to be p2p cash. Each day more merchants accept it for payments for goods and services. Not some hodl lambo beanie baby coin for hobby devs to play with. BitPy just added BitCoin cash to their platform for example. Low fees and secure. This here might be a good thing to get really CLEAN protocol code, long term stability and bold industrial style expectation management - good for any decent integration on top of that protocol -> easy adoption for any solution provider / user. https://www.ccn.com/satoshis-vision-craig-wright-to-launch-bch-node-to-restore-original-bitcoin-protocol/And BTW - it keeps up to the nearly 10y proven concept of secure on-chain TXs, and fully excludes any other toy games (SW, LN, ...) from such a proven protocol. Also in terms of regulation ( see actual proceedings at SEC, Fincen ,... ) it is good since Bitcoin Cash will be only investment asset on the market, that is compliant with the only existing selling prospect - the Satoshi white paper. - I'm sure that not really many can think that through yet.  |
|
|
|
when pump?
teh flippening?
I'm sure - it will be at a Monday. |
|
|
|
|
Gold bugs are the oldest cult on the planet. Bitcoin could become next, but just depends how open and inclusive it is to any mostly controversial oriented newbies and industries.
|
|
|
|
The price of the Bitcoin Cash coin has also fallen sharply recently. The coin program can cross the market in bull and bear markets, and investors can hold the Bitcoin Cash coins firmly.
Market price and real value are different things, so there is a finding phase that needs readjustment due to the input of growth and news here. I like to point you to 1971 when Nixon removed the gold standard, after that we had about of 10y a very high gold price volatility because of only the finding phase and without growth like in Bitcoin. A big such news thing in Bitcoin space just happens here in Liechtenstein with Binance and LCX https://youtu.be/X9kgErFHomk |
|
|
|
Wenn mal irgendwann so ein ETF da ist, also so einer der mit richtigen BTC gedeckt ist und es kommt zu einem Fork, wem gehören dann die Forkcoins?
Na ist doch klar, der ETF-Betreiber wartet ab, welche Chain sich durchsetzt, dann definiert er den Anspruch auf Zahlung aus dem ETF auf die wertlosere Chain und streicht den dicken Batzen ein  Edit: wenn ich kurz drüber nachdenke, ist das tatsächlich ein ernsthaftes Problem, das sich eigentlich juristisch nicht sauber lösen lässt. Kommt drauf an was im Fonds-Prospekt steht und wie der Fonds das für sich definiert... ... aha, hier kommt ja jemand auf den Trichter? Nicht nur der ETF Prospekt ist von Interesse sondern auch das Underlying, ob hierbei das White Paper referenziert werden müsste? Dumdididumdidum |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
