this is not apples to apples, the use of BTC is not the same as BTCCASH or BTCSV. They are different things.

A bigger block size will lower fees as supply goes up, and it achieves the origonal L1 soloution that satoshi outlines.

There was no mention of L2 or LN in the BTC white paper, but there were calculation by satoshi to show L1 could scale, by blocksize.

The people seeking to use and do use BTC is much higher than BTCCASH or BTCSV and the latter do achieve a much lower relative cost for fees.

So this whole issue is a restatement of 'should we scale blocksize?'

SegWit2x was shot down. BCH market price has tanked. BSV has tanked. Though I think that is market recognition.

I argued with LK on this - that there must be some g(x) where block size gets bigger as the internet gets faster and HD space gets cheaper, which it has since 2010.

Satoshi's initial idea was to scale block size.

The 1MB cap was instituted as a stop-gap measure only.

It is clear that all the high TPS and super cheap coins run into L1 centralization issues, but normies don't get this; they just want to hear TPS high and cheap.

EOS is a demonstration where you could not keep up with the rate of increase of the blocks and so end up with centralization.

DAGs may offer some solution, but I have yet to see a convincing proof.

The immutable fact is data costs space and energy to store.

The 1MB size does ensure that decentralization is high, but reaches a crunch point where miners see fees drop off.

At some point, the block size should increase, and there is some g(x).

Where this is up for question, but when BTC does increase this, it risks losing the narrative to BCH or some other scheme, as BTC has committed to 1MB.

Luke Jr actually advocated for 1/2 MB blocks, which is why I said fine, but what is your g(x)?

There must be some, and a reasonable one could solve the fee issue.

can some one please explain how the SOL chain keep "stopping" then restarting .... how does Sol maintain integrity?

Plan B has been wrong so many time - It's no even funny. The NPC t hat follow him deserve the capital de allocation they get.

BTC allows us to see more or less how much BTC is being traded. That vast majority of BTC is not moveing and sits off the market. About 2-3 (30%) million BTC seem to be actively traded.

On top of that, whoever sold in the repeat cycles of 2011, 2013, 2017 and 2021, have been wiped out from the market, meaning each time you just get people more commitied to holding.

So what I don't understand is Who selling, becuase there is almost no one left in BTC that is selling any significant amounts.

Are CEX's selling and dealing in fractional BTC tradeing?

I am saying is people have run out of BTC to sell. So what then is being sold?

if you take into account inflation since the 68K top it already has in todays $ value.

Thats a sobering thought.

ok pretty much what I thought.

I dont real see an argument against some g(x) to incease btc blocksize but I suppose the smaller the block the lighter the chain, so more decebtralized to a point

Can some one explain how solana will not fall into the EOS situation where due to the size of the block chain growth it wont end upbeing centralise on one or two servers maybe 3.

What solutions does it offer to get around this? I have taken a glance at the info on Solana and it seems to take a stratify out in


State Snapshots (Point 1): Solana uses a mechanism where it takes snapshots of the current state (like account balances) and disregards much of the transaction history for day-to-day operations. This reduces the data that nodes need to store and process, making it easier for more participants to run nodes. However, this approach can be vulnerable to edge attacks if the snapshots themselves are tampered with or if the mechanism for deciding what to include in a snapshot is manipulated.

Data Sharding (Point 2): Solana's concept of having mid-tier nodes that hold parts of the blockchain can be seen as a form of data sharding. This approach divides the blockchain data among multiple nodes, reducing the load on any single node. By incentivizing these nodes, Solana encourages distribution and redundancy. However, this system's security depends on ensuring that the nodes are sufficiently decentralized and that the shards are properly managed and verified.

Full Nodes (Point 3): Full nodes, which hold the complete blockchain, are essential for the network's integrity but are resource-intensive to operate. Solana anticipates that improvements in data throughput and storage technology will make it feasible for more participants to run full nodes in the future.

what to stop edge attack vectors on [1] and [2] and collapse of 3 in to EOS 2.0

I take no side in the big block small block argument, but it has to be the case that block size should increased at some point as this will solve a lot of the fees issue, its just a question of how much the block size should increase.

why did eth make it so hard to stake?

I have used NEM / XYM and you can delegated stake from your wallet safely and easily.

Eth has no such equivalent

black mirror IRL

so, I think this goes against the general philosophy of crypto and the value proposition.
you can be sanctioned, becasue the can link it to you.
I feel AI people have missed the concept of what crypto and BTC is, and tried to get on the crypto to get themsleves rich.
this may have some function as npc dross
but it seems the anti XMR.

can they just print more is one of my questions

The old term was balkanization.
The new term is wokenalnization.

As it turns out the US (and west) in undergoing wokenalnization , which has been more destructive than, balkanization

in the former you identify as disticnit culture and racial groups
in the latter you idetiy as whatever you want and no racial groups exist sort of.

in the former the border is around your states land
in the latter via mass immgration and a mosaic of suburbs the state will only (sort of) defend or allow you to defend you property, and you have the right on that property to eject others (to varing degrees).

wokenalnization has hollowed out the US as a functional polity at several levels, economic via tax transfer,  identity, race and potlical alignment to name a few
as such the US is a spent force.

The un lacks among other things the capability to maintain its weapons systems.


Inerestingly how so many uh how shall we say .... caucasian young males that have followers have pruchased wharehouses to carry on in a large enough space to innovate and do stuff, as the have retreated to that space (unconiciously or conciously).

, Polo is offering UST at 12%. As per the title, is this unsustainable over the long term? For example, does it create a leveraged unwinding position like the UST/Luna fiasco?

I am in no way saying this is UST/LUNA,

but the 12% seems a bit high?

 

You are used to a narrow failiy limted USD experience. Plenty of fiat currencies fall the same percentaces. When the bank fails and you can get you USD back it 100% loss of funds (- the 250K, so anything over that).

All currencies are floating. They can go up alot or lose alot.

$1000/20000 is only 5%.

When BTC in the demoninator then it will be "stable" all other currecies will be seen to fluctate against BTC

By zero I mean that when you can't get you money back from the bank, it is for you zero.

Becuase people will realise you can't do a run on BTC as it is provably 100% backed. As more banks fail, if they do, the people in the queues and thier freinds and the media are going to realise you can always transfer your BTC.

Fiat does not look so "stable" vs btc when fiat can effectively go to zero overnight, becuase your bank failed.

I see this as sure disaster

where do you store the paper
hardware made at hardware level with hardware level attacks.

Your at the mercy of a lot of people a very long supply chain that *know* you puting valuable there

 client was just hacked, it seems that attacker somehow gained access to all his saved google passwords with then allowed the hacker to get access to poloniex (did not have 2FA enabled) and the attacker also manage to get control of or partial control of

- 2 x yahoo accounts
- 2 X gmail accounts
- Facebook account
- and perhaps more
- we fought a battle over the last 24 hours putting 2FA's on anything that moved and changing all passwords to offline local solutions - which is no small task
- we assumed all his computers were compromised so - used off line solutions (air gapping) to institute new funds addresses, just in case

- the possible vectors were
- stats OSX recently installed though brew, or fan control through brew
- Recent Windows machine was purchased for the first time in years seems to have endless vectors.
- Use of a government wifi
-we can track it back to the google passwords because they contained the same passwords as where the attacker struck
- fortunately my client always checks his email regularly and so saw an unusual email in their yahoo account , that then disappeared indicating someone had accessed his polo account.
- They logged into their polo account and sent some funds to a fall back address, the usual small amount to test the fall back address was legit
- at that  point the attacker tried to move all the funds to their address
- My client was able to contact Polo as well as log in and cancer the transaction meaning the attacker had to try again
- the attacker also activated 2FA which froze funds but it was unclear if that freeze applied to existing transactions
- in any event - the funds were frozen and polo was very good in getting everything authenticate

we saw some emails sent to out fall back emails that showed where the attacker was trying.

It turns out they were using it seems a static IP address, with Chrome on a NT!!!? machine

his sign-in attempt was made on:

Device
chrome, windows nt
When
12 January 2023 at 4:19:58 am GMT-08:00
Where*
Australia
49.181.222.50 >>> Microplex PTY LTD, OPTUS

the same was also identified in our conversations with Polo

This IP needs to banned and shut down or the ip forwarding to it. We are pursing with legal authorities at the present, to good results, it seems the owner/attacker has been identified and will face prosecution, which have quite severe consequences in the relevant jurisdiction.

Shout out to polo they really came through. Thier quick action saved the funds.

The reason my client was 2FA adverse was they were worried about losing the 2FA access

So, LJR apears a bit niave, he thinks office was hard to get into
Gets hacked, does not change his addressess or wallet or make a new wallet.

Also I thought he would have more than 200 BTC.

He should be able to sue his server provider for losses