[ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees

[tekmobile]

why do I have the feeling this article is a web of lies?: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup

Segwit fixes many underlying issues in bitcoin and creates a short term temporary scaling fix many that do not understand what segwit it just spread misinformation and call the facts FUD.
This short term fix then allows for a huge scaling fix that will carry bitcoin to the masses

BCH on the other hand have decided to leave these underlying security issues in place in favour of a slightly longer short term scaling fix but it is just still a short term fix if BCH does grow the blocks will get full and it is not immune to mempool spam just like BTC this will fill blocks very fast and there is no evidence yet how the network will react it takes considerably longer to verify a 8MB block so you will probably find empty blocks being mined just on the headers so far the average block is under 100k so yes it will run well just like bitcoin did when transaction count was low

[1714840359]

1714840359

[TrumpBump]

why do I have the feeling this article is a web of lies?: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup

Segwit fixes many underlying issues in bitcoin and creates a short term temporary scaling fix many that do not understand what segwit it just spread misinformation and call the facts FUD.
This short term fix then allows for a huge scaling fix that will carry bitcoin to the masses

BCH on the other hand have decided to leave these underlying security issues in place in favour of a slightly longer short term scaling fix but it is just still a short term fix if BCH does grow the blocks will get full and it is not immune to mempool spam just like BTC this will fill blocks very fast and there is no evidence yet how the network will react it takes considerably longer to verify a 8MB block so you will probably find empty blocks being mined just on the headers so far the average block is under 100k so yes it will run well just like bitcoin did when transaction count was low

Bitcoin was designed to run on its own; no "wits" involved. No segwit no nitwit, no shit bitch. The platform doesn't need anything other than a fucking upscale mate. Cut your shit. You're becoming the archetypal cocksucker they want you to be.

[tekmobile]

why do I have the feeling this article is a web of lies?: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup

Segwit fixes many underlying issues in bitcoin and creates a short term temporary scaling fix many that do not understand what segwit it just spread misinformation and call the facts FUD.
This short term fix then allows for a huge scaling fix that will carry bitcoin to the masses

BCH on the other hand have decided to leave these underlying security issues in place in favour of a slightly longer short term scaling fix but it is just still a short term fix if BCH does grow the blocks will get full and it is not immune to mempool spam just like BTC this will fill blocks very fast and there is no evidence yet how the network will react it takes considerably longer to verify a 8MB block so you will probably find empty blocks being mined just on the headers so far the average block is under 100k so yes it will run well just like bitcoin did when transaction count was low

Bitcoin was designed to run on its own; no "wits" involved. No segwit no nitwit, no shit bitch. The platform doesn't need anything other than a fucking upscale mate. Cut your shit. You're becoming the archetypal cocksucker they want you to be.

BCH has witness data too (your signature) its included in the transaction hash all segwit really does in the very most basic terms is move this outside of the transaction hash basically segregating it

Obviously its a bit more complicated than that but all the same information is in the block its just been slightly rearranged

[serby10101010001100010]

why do I have the feeling this article is a web of lies?: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup

Segwit fixes many underlying issues in bitcoin and creates a short term temporary scaling fix many that do not understand what segwit it just spread misinformation and call the facts FUD.
This short term fix then allows for a huge scaling fix that will carry bitcoin to the masses

BCH on the other hand have decided to leave these underlying security issues in place in favour of a slightly longer short term scaling fix but it is just still a short term fix if BCH does grow the blocks will get full and it is not immune to mempool spam just like BTC this will fill blocks very fast and there is no evidence yet how the network will react it takes considerably longer to verify a 8MB block so you will probably find empty blocks being mined just on the headers so far the average block is under 100k so yes it will run well just like bitcoin did when transaction count was low

@tek,

LOL now you can fud.

There is no huge scaling fix, segcrap moved witness data out of the 1MB file , the file is still limited to 1 MB, no matter what.
Which means by removing the witness data , you may have up to 60% of the 1MB file free.
And that is only if all of the witness data is using segwit addresses, if any uses the nonsegwit addresses they decrease that 60% much lower.
Segwit will be a theoretical Max of 1.7MB File size (1MB fixed+~.7MB segwit witness data)  according to Core own records.

Lightening Network is Offchain Transactions , totally a waste of time, Exchanges could provide offchain transactions without all of these shenanigans.

Nothing in segwit or LN do anything to stop spam transactions.
As they can't tell a normal transactions from a spam transactions.
All they do is raise the fees, and they did that before segwit activated.

And the so called Malleability Problem was caused by Core Devs when they changed Bitcoin to no longer process transactions in order, but allowed higher fees to jump ahead. And it has been an issue for years they never worried about fixing until now.

By the way a non-segcrap solution to the malleability issue is Flexible Transactions.
https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/


╥Aztek

Thanks for the clear cut answer. Now it makes sense, I didn't have to go through the details and the fallacious arguments.

[tekmobile]

@tek,

LOL now you can fud.

There is no huge scaling fix, segcrap moved witness data out of the 1MB file , the file is still limited to 1 MB, no matter what.
Which means by removing the witness data , you may have up to 60% of the 1MB file free.
And that is only if all of the witness data is using segwit addresses, if any uses the nonsegwit addresses they decrease that 60% much lower.
Segwit will be a theoretical Max of 1.7MB File size (1MB fixed+~.7MB segwit witness data)  according to Core own records.

Lightening Network is Offchain Transactions , totally a waste of time, Exchanges could provide offchain transactions without all of these shenanigans.

Nothing in segwit or LN do anything to stop spam transactions.
As they can't tell a normal transactions from a spam transactions.
All they do is raise the fees, and they did that before segwit activated.

And the so called Malleability Problem was caused by Core Devs when they changed Bitcoin to no longer process transactions in order, but allowed higher fees to jump ahead. And it has been an issue for years they never worried about fixing until now.

By the way a non-segcrap solution to the malleability issue is Flexible Transactions.
https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/


╥Aztek

I never said segwit or anything  fixes spam transactions just that things like this will bring BCH to a halt too except there will be the chance of many more empty blocks being mined due the the vast increase in processing time required to verify the increased block size no body knows its not tested

I guess exchanges are the best bet and im sure everyone that had funds in MTgox and BTC-e and all the other failed or hacked exchanges etc will agree with you

LN is much safer think of it as a bit like the tor network a transaction goes in one end and comes out the other you don't know how it got there and which path it took you just know it jumped through a web of nodes and all the nodes know is to pass it onto the next they do not know where it originated or if it is the first or last hop

If a node goes down, becomes rogue etc then it will just take another route

[European Central Bank]

so some chinese guy forgets to wake up so he can singlehandedly adjust bcash's inflation rate.

yep, this is so very definitely 'satoshi's vision'.

[tomkat]

why do I have the feeling this article is a web of lies?: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup

Segwit fixes many underlying issues in bitcoin and creates a short term temporary scaling fix many that do not understand what segwit it just spread misinformation and call the facts FUD.
This short term fix then allows for a huge scaling fix that will carry bitcoin to the masses

BCH on the other hand have decided to leave these underlying security issues in place in favour of a slightly longer short term scaling fix but it is just still a short term fix if BCH does grow the blocks will get full and it is not immune to mempool spam just like BTC this will fill blocks very fast and there is no evidence yet how the network will react it takes considerably longer to verify a 8MB block so you will probably find empty blocks being mined just on the headers so far the average block is under 100k so yes it will run well just like bitcoin did when transaction count was low

...
Nothing in segwit or LN do anything to stop spam transactions.
As they can't tell a normal transactions from a spam transactions.
All they do is raise the fees, and they did that before segwit activated.
...

I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?

[European Central Bank]

I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spam

"Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc."

certain transactions exist solely to screw up bitcoin's functionality. that's spam by anyone's measure. i dunno how you combat it, but one address sending itself thousands of low or no fee transactions only has one purpose.

[tekmobile]

I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?

Ok so if I was to setup a botnet right now with the sole purpose to send 1000s of very low value transactions a second continuously with just a very low fee to and from addresses that I own it would be legitimate and you wouldn't class it as spam even though the BCH network has no way of coping with this kind of throughput and would bring it to its knees

[tomkat]

I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spam

"Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc."

certain transactions exist solely to screw up bitcoin's functionality. that's spam by anyone's measure. i dunno how you combat it, but one address sending itself thousands of low or no fee transactions only has one purpose.

I could agree that no fee TXs could be treated as spam eventually, but anything with non-zero fees is legitimate for me.
Also, there's no way anyone can recognize what is the purpose of any transaction, except its originator.

[tomkat]

I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?

Ok so if I was to setup a botnet right now with the sole purpose to send 1000s of very low value transactions with just a very low fee to and from addresses that I own it would be legitimate and you wouldn't class it as spam even though the BCH network has no way of coping with this kind of throughput and would bring it to its knees

Yes, you can do what you want with your money.
If the network cannot handle transactions that are technically correct, then it will just collapse, and better solution will emerge.

[tekmobile]

I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?

Ok so if I was to setup a botnet right now with the sole purpose to send 1000s of very low value transactions with just a very low fee to and from addresses that I own it would be legitimate and you wouldn't class it as spam even though the BCH network has no way of coping with this kind of throughput and would bring it to its knees

Yes, you can do what you want with your money.
If the network cannot handle transactions that are technically correct, then it will just collapse, and better solution will emerge.

And what kind of solution would you recommend ?

[tekmobile]

And what kind of solution would you recommend ?

LOL,
they tried spamming the Bitcoin Cash Network and it was Wiped out in 1 Block.

As of the moment the only coin unable to handle their transactions is segwitcoin.

Bitcoin Cash & Litecoin all can handle a larger transaction capacity.

The Increased Capacity means your Cost to Spam it grows exponentially, so take your best shot.


╥Aztek

That was a tiny instantaneous attack im meaning a continuous one and yes the small one was wiped in one block but how would it cope if every 8MB block was full its going to take a considerable longer time to verify which means the creator of the block has a good head start while the others are mining on just the headers while its verified meaning more empty blocks

[European Central Bank]

That was a tiny instantaneous attack im meaning a continuous one and yes the small one was wiped in one block but how would it cope if every 8MB block was full its going to take a considerable longer time to verify which means the creator of the block has a good head start while the others are mining on just the headers while its verified meaning more empty blocks

there is a very simple reason why this won't happen.

it's because the only people who've ever spammed the bitcoin blockchain are also the creators of bcash.

[tekmobile]

That was a tiny instantaneous attack im meaning a continuous one and yes the small one was wiped in one block but how would it cope if every 8MB block was full its going to take a considerable longer time to verify which means the creator of the block has a good head start while the others are mining on just the headers while its verified meaning more empty blocks

Again your words are cheap ,

Spam Bitcoin Cash continuously and prove your point , or let your inability to do so , prove mine.


╥Aztek


 

Ive no intention of doing so just stating if it was to happen it would fail just like BTC does having a larger block does nothing long term its just a short term fix just like segwit is

The only difference is segwit does allow for greater scaling in the future LN gets a lot of grief due to some issues it has but don't forget its still in alpha and these issues are being worked on and the only reason LN gets the main focus is because its being developed by core/blockstream  but it will not be the only player in the game now transaction malleability is fixed it makes it much easier for 3rd parties to make and use there own solutions which could be better or could be worse we have the choice and users will vote with their BTC.

[Angroys]

whats with the price drop recently?

[tekmobile]

whats with the price drop recently?

Its the same price as last week around $600 and the week before that was just over $300 if you think its dropped you must have bought into the hype at nearer $1000 if so I have some bad news, you may be waiting a while before it reaches these heights again

[tomkat]

That was a tiny instantaneous attack im meaning a continuous one and yes the small one was wiped in one block but how would it cope if every 8MB block was full its going to take a considerable longer time to verify which means the creator of the block has a good head start while the others are mining on just the headers while its verified meaning more empty blocks

Again your words are cheap ,

Spam Bitcoin Cash continuously and prove your point , or let your inability to do so , prove mine.


╥Aztek


 

Ive no intention of doing so just stating if it was to happen it would fail just like BTC does having a larger block does nothing long term its just a short term fix just like segwit is

The only difference is segwit does allow for greater scaling in the future LN gets a lot of grief due to some issues it has but don't forget its still in alpha and these issues are being worked on and the only reason LN gets the main focus is because its being developed by core/blockstream  but it will not be the only player in the game now transaction malleability is fixed it makes it much easier for 3rd parties to make and use there own solutions which could be better or could be worse we have the choice and users will vote with their BTC.

I don't think LN is a holy grail of crypto, and probaly won't solve capacity issues.
Just as an example, why would anyone prefer to use 2 on-chain transactions (open channel > [transfer] > close channel) for a simple transfer over a simple single on-chain TX?
I know, the channels are meant for re-using over longer period of time, but here we go with another problem - you must be online to send-receive money, right? So if you want to pay someone, that someone must be online at the same time.
LN is more for merchants, peyment hubs and other centralized players, and not for poor little users sending their money few times per month or year.

[tekmobile]

I don't think LN is a holy grail of crypto, and probably won't solve capacity issues.
Just as an example, why would anyone prefer to use 2 on-chain transactions (open channel > [transfer] > close channel) for a simple transfer over a simple single on-chain TX?
I know, the channels are meant for re-using over longer period of time, but here we go with another problem - you must be online to send-receive money, right? So if you want to pay someone, that someone must be online at the same time.
LN is more for merchants, payment hubs and other centralised players, and not for poor little users sending their money few times per month or year.

If you just want to move a small quantity of lump sums then you can do this on chain just as you can now the off chain solutions are designed more for very frequent lower transaction types like you say merchants and payment hubs and no you do not need to be online at the same time

[Walker0118]

Im getting crazy of this. Still didnt claim my bitcoin cash
Becouse i still dont know How.
I have bitcoin on A usb stick. So Wallet.dat
How cam i claim them ??