<<raises hand>>

---

If lightning ever works as claimed, then probably. If not, you might want to look into Bitcoin Cash. At this moment, fees on Bitcoin Cash are 2350 times (!) less than those on Bitcoin Segwit (cashvscore.com). Less than a half-cent per average transaction.

---

They used to be around. Then fees rose. And people stopped using Bitcoin for day-to-day purchases. Shame, that.

---

Precisely. A little problem. Will it be ongoing? Magic 8 Ball says 'ask again'.

---

Though to be clear, his worry is not in regards to Bitcoin trading, nor trading of Bitcoin derivatives. He took great care to drive home the point that he thinks those are fine, and that he is even enthused about them. His worry is specifically that a single trading house might carry both those products, as well as more traditional derivatives, within the same business unit. For technical reasons that I am not sure I understand, he thinks that short positions might get in a state where they cannot buy to close their short (i.e. for a loss), and that this will spillover into the tradtional trading side, causing insolvency of the brokerage.

---

No. It absolutely could not. The channel must be funded. This requires at least one on-chain transaction.

---

Got any analysis to go with that bald assertion?

Probably. After such a spectacular spike, a retracement is only to be expected. We'll likely experience several waves of FOMO overbuying followed by others taking profits on 'free coinz'.


If the flippening happens, it will be after many cycles of the above.

---

Because you actually get to eat, rather than go to bed hungry.


But we have cliff divers! And roaming mariachis!
Grr. That's what I get for stretching an already-flawed analogy.
Apologies to our befuddled non-CO USA participants.

---

You are quite persistent at repeatedly spewing empty allegations. Yet for all your continued bluster, you have yet to offer any actual evidence.

---

And endless hours of trolling the thread of a coin in which you have no interest is a productive use of your time? Got it.

---

Well, the intent was that it not be a fork, but merely an upgrade to improve the DAA. There were a few renegade users that did not want to upgrade. While it took a while after the upgrade activated, a renegade block was finally mined. And Bitcoin Clashic was born (I don't know if it has an official name, but I've seen several refer to it as such). Will it survive? Who knows? Is it worth claiming? Your mileage may vary. Not available in all jurisdictions. Objects in rear view mirror may be smaller than they appear.

---

Denigrating assertion does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic.

A team recently started probing at the limits of what the Bitcoin network can actually achieve. In terms of controlled experiments directly scaling transaction count, on a worldwide subset of machines, and recording the results. About time someone did this, eh?

AAR, they found that with today's satoshi client, and commodity consumer hardware, the system starts bogging down at about 100 tx/s. In terms of blocksize, that would be ~33MB blocks. So we obviously have considerable headroom in the system for improvement by means of simple increase of maxblocksize. This would consume about 25% of a single core of a typical 4-core CPU, with 16 GB RAM, and an SSD, while consuming about 3 Mb/s of network BW.

But they did not stop there. Due to the fact that allocating more CPU cores to the problem did not improve performance above this (i.e., that it consumed a smaller percentage of additional cores, with no increase in throughput), they postulated that suboptimal multithreading performance might be the root of the issue. So they refactored the code to employ contemporary concurrency design techniques. After such refactoring, the performance of the system - on the same HW - was able to process 500 tx/s. This would correspond to >150 MB blocksize. I repeat - on the same, consumer-grade, hardware. Of course, this results in an increased network BW consumption of 15 Mb/s.

So we see that, despite the maturity of the satoshi client (i.e., a decade of development by Bitcoin's supposed best), there is significant low-hanging fruit in the deficiency of the software design of the satoshi client. Deficiencies having to do directly with scalability. Deficiencies that -- so far -- have not been addressed by the core developers.

Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture. But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

On the other hand, another team has. Who was it? A collaboration of members of the teams working on Bitcoin Cash.

---

At this moment, fees for Bitcoin are 2636 times the fees for Bitcoin Cash.
(cashvscore.com)

Ah - quote was a link. Got it. Nevertheless, the quote does not support the allegation that -- and I quote the author of the article -- the EDA was "designed with malicious intent".

Yeah. Sorry for the diversion. My only defense is that I did not start it. Just tired of people parroting rumors before devoting any analysis to the matter.

So am I to conclude you have no evidence to offer, despite your earlier absolutist claim?

Well, BTX predates BCH, so it ain't the new nuttin'
And by virtue of its market insignificance, BTX ain't disrupting nuttin', either

---

hah - you funny
It's up like 3x in three weeks. That's a pretty good return in any market.

Seems low. If one were to buy 1080ti cards today, how long to ROI?

Because:
- Bitcoin Cash is not a scam
- Dash is a nefariously premined, tightly manipulated scam
- Litecoin offers no advantage over Bitcoin Segwit, but suffers from not having the Bitcoin ledger, nor is it traceable to the genesis block

Whine all you want, Coinbase provided advance notice that they would not be honoring the BCH split. Indeed, I moved a big chunk o change from them to kraken for exactly this reason.

OK, let's go with this analogy. I get that the empirical evidence shows all is rosy in your restaurant (Let's call it Big Things'o'Chow). But that reflects current conditions before knowledge of an alternative spreads through out the community.

To add some fidelity to the situation, eaters have been largely enthused about Big Things-o-Chow (I'll shorten it to BTC for brevity) in the past. The quality of the food is good. They've been able to get prompt service at a good price. But that is the past. Lately, lines have been forming outside BTC, of people waiting to be served. This has happened in the past - at seating for 250, 500 and 750 in turn. At each of these previous junctures, the owners have responded by increasing the size of the restaurant and adding more seats. But not this time. No. 1000 seats, no more.

Indeed, the lines are getting longer and longer. Further, the prices to get in are going up. Seeing as they have a ready and eager clientele, the restaurant starts auctioning off places in line to get in. Prices in this auction climb and climb, and still more people come. It gets so bad that not only are you not guaranteed prompt service for any amount of money (you can always be later outbid), but people spend all night in line only to be turned away by closure for the night. They go to bed hungry after wasting their entire evening in line.

Well, sensing a market opportunity, another restaurant -- let's call 'em Big Chow House -- opens in roughly the same neighborhood, with roughly the same quality of food. The biggest difference is that the place accommodates 8000 people. No wait. No bidding to get in. Low prices. Like 1/2344 the cost*. Nobody goes to bed hungry after spending all night in line.

What do you think will happen over time, as knowledge of and experience with Big Chow House diffuses through the community?

*In this moment, I am quoting current stats from cashvscore.com.

Absolutely. And the scheme that I outline takes advantage of that happy mnemonic near-coincidence. Without any drawbacks. And eliminates the ambiguity that has led to fuckup after fuckup after fuckup after...


Nobody later decided that - the prefix 'k' or 'kilo' has denoted exactly 1000 since long before the dawn of logic-based computing.


It is used by every thinking person that values precision.


Universities absolutely teach the difference between 1000 and 1024, and the difference between metric powers-of-ten units and binary prefix powers-of-two units. Sure, there may be some backwaters that are still stuck in the eighties*, clinging to a misleading and imprecise anachronism. But by and large, the difference is known and taught - everywhere that values truth.

*Actually, I graduated with an Electrical Engineering degree in the eighties. And while we didn't yet have the convenient binary prefix notation back then, we were absolutely taught that misusing metric prefixes as an approximation was exactly that - an approximation. And not strictly correct. And to always be mindful of the error and ambiguity inserted due to this misuse.


Linux certainly knows how to report memory and disk capacities in KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB, ... Of course, if your favorite clownshoe hides the truth from you, don't put that on Linux - put it on your dumbed down distro. And don't talk to me about Windows as if it is some paragon of Vires in Numeris. Last time I bothered to look, Windows couldn't even agree with itself. What with it reporting a GB as (something like) 1024*1024*1000 in Disk Mangler and as 1024*1000*1000 in File Mangler. Or some equivalent comedy of hapless errors.


Hoo-boy. we got a live one here. I suppose you think NIST is ignorant on computing? ISO? IEEE? ACM? IETF?


Cool. You've said a second thing that isn't 100% wrong. But conversely, just because you say that 1000=1024 does not mean it is.


This has exactly zero to do with the discussion at hand. However, this could be good for a couple of laughs. Please explain to me the physics behind your assertion that one cannot build a memory chip that holds exactly 1000 bytes of information. On second thought, don't. We don't need the fruitless diversion. Nor the ensuing hilarity.

So now that that is out of the way, let me try again. If we use the binary prefixes when we are speaking of 2^(10*n):
- we remove the ambiguity of not knowing if a measurement of (e.g.) 'M' means 1000000 or if it means 1,048,576 (or even 1,024,000);
- we lose none of the brevity of compact notation;
- we lose none of the mental chunking that comes from conveniently scaled units;
- we stop losing time and money due to fuckups in unit misunderstandings;
- we are using the units that all serious and conscientious scientists and engineers use;
- we stop killing people; and
- when the legacy Bitcoin max block size is 1MB, we know instantly it is 1,000,000 bytes, not 1000*1024 bytes, nor 1024*1024 bytes (guess what - 1,000,000 is exactly what it is - it is NOT 1,048,576)

Look, it's OK to be ignorant. There's no shame in that. I'm sure I am ignorant on any number of topics. However, to cling to a deprecated, failure-prone anachronism -- after being shown the error of your ways -- is downright foolish. And that is indeed shameful.

Stop misusing metric unit prefixes as approximations of binary powers-of-two. Before they kill again.

I don't care who ya are - that there's funny!

And a pistol-wielding cat riding a bucking unicorn spewing flames from its mouth.

3!

There is zero evidence that Bitcoin Cash's surge in popularity is anything other than exactly "like that".

There is no quote. If you disagree with my assertion, then please respond, copying the quote -- verbatim -- from the aforementioned article.

In case you need a refresher:
https://themerkle.com/bch-eda-was-designed-to-cause-bitcoin-network-congestion-former-dev-claims/

If Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin (a hypothetical with which I do not agree), then this forum -- the Announcements (Altcoins) Forum -- would be a place that the creators of bitcointalk specifically set aside for discussion thereof.

You stupid piece of shit.

^^^^^^
Opinionated allegations unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. If the allegation is that Bitcoin Cash's Chief Scientist admitted that the EDA was designed specifically to cause congestion on the Bitcoin Segwit chain, it should at least be supported by a quote of him saying so. But no. If I had the interest to pursue it, I believe it likely that I would discover that the allegation is a simple lie.

Again - does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic.

A team recently started probing at the limits of what the Bitcoin network can actually achieve. In terms of controlled experiments directly scaling transaction count, on a worldwide subset of machines, and recording the results. About time someone did this, eh?

AAR, they found that with today's satoshi client, and commodity consumer hardware, the system starts bogging down at about 100 tx/s. In terms of blocksize, that would be ~33MB blocks. So we obviously have considerable headroom in the system for improvement by means of simple increase of maxblocksize. This would consume about 25% of a single core of a typical 4-core CPU, with 16 GB RAM, and an SSD, while consuming about 3 Mb/s of network BW.

But they did not stop there. Due to the fact that allocating more CPU cores to the problem did not improve performance above this (i.e., that it consumed a smaller percentage of additional cores, with no increase in throughput), they postulated that suboptimal multithreading performance might be the root of the issue. So they refactored the code to employ contemporary concurrency design techniques. After such refactoring, the performance of the system - on the same HW - was able to process 500 tx/s. This would correspond to >150 MB blocksize. I repeat - on the same, consumer-grade, hardware. Of course, this results in an increased network BW consumption of 15 Mb/s.

So we see that, despite the maturity of the satoshi client (i.e., a decade of development by Bitcoin's supposed best), there is significant low-hanging fruit in the deficiency of the software design of the satoshi client. Deficiencies having to do directly with scalability. Deficiencies that -- so far -- have not been addressed by the core developers.

Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture. But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

On the other hand, another team has. Who was it? A collaboration of members of the teams working on Bitcoin Cash.

I am not appealing anything. Further, the topic-starter has not requested that I leave. So who is the stupid one? Find a mirror.


It ain't spam, and it ain't Bitcoin Cash propaganda. It pertains directly to Bitcoin walls and to Bitcoin price. Thanks for playing. Bye.

You whiny bitch.

Or, blocksize can be increased -- just hear me out here -- blocksize can be increased whenever someone takes the initiative to increase it. And we have. And it works.

Cheers!

Incidentally, core has not the full set of cryptocurrency scientists and engineers. And not all scientists nor all engineers are aligned with core on the blocksize point.

---

Yeah? Mine's one of 'em. I'll get to it.