Blah blah blah larger block blah blah
You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend
Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof.
And you feel that you grasp full consequences of bcash and bsv and their unlimited blocks ...?
For the most part, yes. I certainly feel I have a greater than average grasp of such consequences -- upon both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core -- than does the average Bitcoiner -- in any of the Bitcoin camps. For evidence of such, I need only look at the near-universally asinine replies issued as 'rebuttals' to the points I make.
I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim.
Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.
The market picks the winners. The market doesn't always care about "superior technology".
That's fair if the argument is made that way. But using the market's decision as an argument for which is "better" in a technical argument doesn't make sense.
I don't think there's anything wrong with just outright stating that you're into Bitcoin because the most prominent representatives of BCash are a bunch of ass wipes that can not be trusted. And that's clearly the reasoning that most people arguing with jbreher are following. After all they're clearly incapable of having a technical debate about the matter. I fall into that camp as well, but I'm not going to pretend that I can hold a candle to jbreher on this topic. Never bothered getting into the technicalities of BTC so can't argue on his level.
If they were the only information that I had regarding BTC vs BCash I would be siding with BCash myself.
So maybe some people in this thread should take a step back and consider the implications of their petty tribalism with regard to new coiners.The game isn't over yet, and if all that new people have to go by is a bunch of nonsense vs technical arguments we could very well see BCash overtaking.
So for whatever reasons, people who care about BTC may want to consider whether or not they want to taint its image with retarded personal attacks and complete absence of rationality.
First of all, I don't believe you need to explain it on technical level why bigger blocks are not a permanent solution to unconfirmed transaction. if 1MB is not bigger enough what makes you think 1GB will be? read back and see my highway analogy and how impracticable it is.
Want a technical explanation of the impact of having every single transaction recorded on the blockchain and also the blockchain having a bigger blocks...
1. Database Size
Lets assume Bitcoin is now the standard peer-to-peer payment method. for Simplicity, let assume there will be 1,000,000,000 Transaction a day. Each transaction is approx 250b. (assuming there is only one input and one output). 41,666,666 / Hour or 6,944,444 /10Mins
This will mean we need a min of 1.736GB blocksize to accommodate the transactions.
So...
Every Block: 1.736GB
Every Hour: 10.416GB
Every Day: 250GB
Every Year: 91,250GB
is added to the blockchain
2. Hardware Requirements
Using a base line, and I am being conservative, of 30sec and 200MB (Should be about 1GB-2GB) of RAM to Validate and Confirm 1MB.
1,736MB would require approx 868mins or 14.4Hours to confirm a block
1,736MB would require approx 347GB of RAM
1,736MB would cost $0.034 (0.02c per GB) or $1,825.00 per year (assuming your computer had enough SATA interfaces)
3. Internet Connection/Bandwidth required
Assuming everyone is on a 1GB fiber connection
1000mBIT / 8bit = 125MB/sec will take 13secs not including overheads, retry missed packet etc etc....
13secs to get to the first node (2 Available to Rely)
26secs to get to another 2 nodes (4 Available to Rely)
39secs to get to another 4 nodes (8 Available to Rely)
52secs to get to another 8 nodes (16 Available to Rely)
65secs to get to another 16 nodes (32 Available to Rely)
78secs to get to another 32 nodes (64 Available to Rely)
91secs to get to another 64 nodes (128 Available to Rely)
104secs to get to another 128 nodes (256 Available to Rely)
117secs to get to another 256 nodes (512 Available to Rely)
130secs to get to another 512 nodes (1024 Available to Rely)
143secs to get to another 1024 nodes (2048 Available to Rely)
156secs to get to another 2048 nodes (4096 Available to Rely)
You will also require a data plan of 7.5TB a month for below.
Every Block: 1.736GB
Every Hour: 10.416GB
Every Day: 250GB
Every Year: 91,250GB
So just to recap the above,
You would need to buy a machine capable of handling 1TB of RAM and possible a RAID Storage that can handle 91TB of Hard Drive Space
You would need and awesome internet connection, maybe two, one for your node the other for netflix
And lets say all this is possible and affordable, you will be spending half the day validation/confirming just 1 block.
From a mining point of view, there would be many orphan and rejected blocks given it takes a large amount of time to validate/confirmed blocks. It will also advantage the last miner who has found the block as they can start on the next block before anyone else.
Say good bye to decentralization of Bitcoin Nodes. Only the Rich and Powerful Corporations will run a full node and destroy the very fabric Bitcoin was built for - Decentralization
In other words, we need to scale a different way! Bigger Blocks/Dynamic Blocks are not the answer.
You are right on a few things, you can not argue with jbreher, because he doesn't actually know what he wants.
First it was "bigger blocks", so i pulled him up on that, and then it is a "no protocol-determined block limit" and now it is a "dynamic block size" that miners can decided what they want.
The other thing that you are definitely right about is that the "game is not over yet". But is sure isn't a game between BTC vs BCH/SV.
It is BTC against another tech that will change the way we look at this whole peer-to-peer payment system. not just another clone of Bitcoin but a real game changer! that is what i am worried about!
Internet speeds are irrelevant, as they increase rapidly as data usage increases. The capacity is not even remotely near its maximum (last I checked 100~1000 GBit for consumers were possible but simply not sensible right now), even if you exclude all the satellites that are being launched over the coming years.
Data plans irrelevant as most countries don't have "data plans" for home use and offer unlimited bandwidth instead.
Storage is irrelevant as well. Even 4 TB SSDs only cost a few hundred bucks these days. By the time storage became an issue we'll have 50-100 TB hard drives for a couple hundred dollars.
RAM seems the only sensible bottleneck if your numbers are accurate. $6 per GB currently and I haven't seen RAM size increase as much as other hardware. But that seems to be mostly because of a lack of utility rather than technical implausibility.
I also fail to see how your highway analogy is supposed to hold. Highways are inherently limited by physical space. Hardware inherently works in a different way. If we had arbitrary amounts of space that we could build on economically we'd have no problem with building even a personal lane for every single human in the world. And with hardware we actually do. It takes sometime to develop and scale, but so far there's no end in sight to how much data we can get from any one point on earth to any other.
I have no idea about the implications on mining and centralization though.
As far as a "real game changer" is concerned. That's already Bitcoin. It solves one of humanity's biggest issues. Banks fucking around and screwing the entire population. For a new "real game changer" to appear we would first require a new "real problem".
And Bitcoin hasn't even been around long enough to really get rid of the issues that come with banking, privatized profits, socialized losses, as well as the fiat toilet paper printing press.
It'll probably take a few decades until we can really identify new serious problems
have people give enough of a shit about them for some to try and someone to actually succeed in solving them as well as people actually jumping ship.
Poll
