Don't believe the HYPE! BTC trans. confirmed in 22 minutes, BCH took 3 HOURS!!!

[CyberKuro]

I decided to set the BTC fee at half the reccomended amount, at around 500 sat/byte. The estimated time for confirmation was 25 BLOCKS or more than 14 hours.
ONLY 22 MINUTES!!! 

So then I was waiting for the BCH transaction I sent, WITH THE FULL RECCOMENDED FEE...
AFTER 3 LONG HOURS!
What a joke. Cheap, instant transactions? HA!  

Well, it's not fair without mentioned how much the fee for bch transaction?
I believe the fee to send bch is less than btc due to the difference of the price,
bitcoin price is $13,431 and bit-cash is just $2800, and you have paid 500 sats/byte, pretty high fee obviously.
However, bcash created as an altcoin, as a trading object without real utility, if the case of bcash transaction takes a longer time to be confirmed, it doesn't matter if most people just trade bcash instead of using it as a medium of exchange. and we expecting more from bitcoin, to be a better alternative currency.

[likeBTC]

But how is it possible? i sent a transaction a few hours ago with a fee of 800 satoshis per byte and it is not confirmed yet, what is wrong with my transaction? was the fee so low?

[Anti-Cen]

Only if you call the other coin segshit. 

Whats your views on the so called segwit fork on the 28th

Anything using a block-chain to me is living on borrowed time because it won't scale
but i would like to know why your down on segwit because I like much of what you say
so maybe you know more than me about it.

[rhenrhen]

So how do we know if we're on the wrong track? I mean, are we just gonna let it drop off like that? What if it was only that time when the transaction slowed? I can't say any further. But glad to read these comments for my future references. Thank you for helping us newbies! :-)

[eaLiTy]

I really do not understand how you sent a cheap and fast transaction at this price,do you think that the Chinese BCH backers will spam the bitcoin network when the price of bitcoin is above ten thousand dollars and if they plan on doing it,they are burning away millions of dollars just to have those strangled bitcoin network which is crazy,be open to new ideas ,there is nothing wrong in it,BCH is much better than all of the creepy alt coins.

[bitbunnny]

22 minutes only? I send 250sat/bytes and it took 3 days to confirmed.
maybe because theres a lot of unconfirmed transaction that day.

Well, there is good news for everyone. The number of unconfirmed transactions have dropped to around 186,000 now. It is still high, but the overall trend is very encouraging.

There was some delay in transactions confirmation for the past couple of days but it seems that the backlog is moving and the number of unconfirmed transactions is getting lower. We've seen such situations before but at the end they were always solved.
Of course it's not pleasant to wait for confirmation for hours of even days and it's bad for Bitcoin system but this is something that could and must be solved. Miners can help with that. And by that I don't mean that Bitcoin cash is solution, on the contrary. And it's natural that lower volume transactions system is functioning more efficient.

[just_Alice]

So I decided to do a little test yesterday and send  a BTC transaction and a BCH transaction at the same time.

Just to make it interesting and give BCH an unfair advantage I decided to set the BTC fee at half the reccomended amount, at around 500 sat/byte. The estimated time for confirmation was 25 BLOCKS or more than 14 hours.

Guess how long the low-fee BTC transaction took???

Well I guess you are just lucky, I have no idea how this described above situation could've happen, because I've recently paid a transaction fee, which was a little bit less, than recommended (as I recall, recommended was about 10$ and I paid about 7$) and it is still pending! It is the 5th day now. It was then, when I realized how useful ethereum can be, because ETH transaction took me really less than 10 minutes and was very cheap.

[Anti-Cen]

The won't scale is bullshit.  The scam is they say it can't scale to match Visa/mastercard.
The Fact is at this point in time it does not need to scale to match visa.

No it's not BS, it won't scale and it's nothing to do with bandwidth at all

Some X-Box games are getting near 200gb in size (Madness) and can be downloaded in a day or so
on a 37mb connection but because of the way the contents of a wallet are spread all over the place
and because all the coins parts making up the balance needed to be scanned it means a shit load
of reading files, un packing and processing.

$200 machines will take hours scanning that volume of data and the biggest SQL-Database
I have played on outside of using something like an AS400 was i think 100gb in size and it ran
like a pig.

I store about 1.7 million HTML files pulled of the internet and scan them for google GA Id's
and the average size of file i would guess is about 100k and believe me, it takes some time to
complete and that's on a $1200 machine running an I7

200gb is a vast amount of data to keep scanning because you cannot just jump to the head
of the list to get a balance for a wallet and if you can program then lets put it to the test so
you can see for yourself and then you will see why I say what I say

"1 second=  2 Nodes Verified"

Not using machines like me or you can afford because our disks won't feed us data at that speed
never mind looking for id's in one, two, four or eight meg of data making up the block. Reading just the block header is not an option

 

[Anti-Cen]

So how do we know if we're on the wrong track? I mean, are we just gonna let it drop off like that? What if it was only that time when the transaction slowed? I can't say any further. But glad to read these comments for my future references. Thank you for helping us newbies! :-)

The miners have been blackmailing us, holding us by the balls so the trust has gone forever
even if fees go back to what they were at the beginning of the year, like $0.10 and Coinbase
has also be found wanting as it fakes "Technical trouble" when prices are crashing.

Joe public bast keep away, clearly any mass arrival will crash the system or send transaction fees
up over $100 which in many cases is as much as they will be spending to test these coins out

[scottykarate]

But how is it possible? i sent a transaction a few hours ago with a fee of 800 satoshis per byte and it is not confirmed yet, what is wrong with my transaction? was the fee so low?

Odds are he is lying , as he is not posting transaction ids so that it can be verified.

Only if you call the other coin segshit. 

Whats your views on the so called segwit fork on the 28th

Anything using a block-chain to me is living on borrowed time because it won't scale
but i would like to know why your down on segwit because I like much of what you say
so maybe you know more than me about it.

The won't scale is bullshit.  The scam is they say it can't scale to match Visa/mastercard.
The Fact is at this point in time it does not need to scale to match visa.

It only needs to be able to handle the current transaction volume at an affordable price.
As time moves on internet speed increases and scaling becomes easier.

If a 1MB block takes 30 seconds to verify and validate, with the current code, wouldn't a 1GB block take 50 minutes to verify? Or is it not linear like that? I don't know, 1 block with transactions in it followed by 5 empty blocks seems inefficient. However, it appears the BCH team is working on this bottleneck, so why are we debating about my original concerns? The concern is no longer valid.

With Current Cable Bandwidth of 100 Mbits , 1 MB block can be transmitted in less than 1 second
100Mbits/8 = 12.5 megabytes per second
Even 8 MB blocks are nothing at modern internet speeds.

Correction: Original Node Verification was squared after every time interval ,
The Correct Verification is a Doubling with every increase in time interval
1 second=  2 Nodes Verified
2 second=  4 Nodes Verified
3 second=  8 Nodes Verified
4 second=  16 Nodes Verified
5 second=  32 Nodes Verified
6 second=  64 Nodes Verified
7 second=128 Nodes Verified
8 second=256 Nodes Verified
9 second=512 Nodes Verified
10 second=1024 Nodes Verified
11 second=2048 Nodes Verified
12 second=4096 Nodes Verified
13 second=8192 Nodes Verified
14 second=16384 Nodes Verified
15 second=32728 Nodes Verified
16 second=65456 Nodes Verified
17 second=130912 Nodes Verified

*Neither Bitcoin has over 20000 Full Nodes at the present time*


Once the normal is 1 Gbps
1 Gbps/8 = 125 megabytes per second

Once the normal is 10 Gbps
10 Gbps/8 = 1.25 gigabytes per second
(This can easily support 1 Gigabyte Blocks and some providers are running at this speed today.)
(Within 17 seconds the 1 Gigabyte block could propagate through ~130912 Nodes.)

Once the normal is 100 Gbs
100 Gbs/8 =12.5 Gigabytes per second

╥Aztek

You obviously know jack shit about networking/WAN or computers for that matter by basing anything off of a user's home internet speed.

[CryptoTamer]

Well the point is BCH transaction is far from the theme of " fast transaction ", low fees and fast transaction are nothing more than a joke from their community , so don't be easily affected by news from BCH community

[Anti-Cen]

*Neither Bitcoin has over 20000 Full Nodes at the present time*

This number seems about right to me and I also hear that it costs about 90KWH to process just one
transaction so can we work backwards to check this number.

Lets assume each machine is 500w which is 1/2 KWH and it takes two seconds to process on each machine

3,600 seconds in an hour so that's 3.6w per second being burned but need to half that because it's only 500w
but then times by two because it runs for 2 seconds if you follow me.

So 20,000 X 3.6 =72,000w so that's 72KWH so does that sound right to you

"Look I run PoW Wallets, they are not really that CPU intensive"

But that's just number crunching and it does not need to scan 200gb of data
but thinking about it asking someone to locate the block header containing a block
with the text "a7022744abcd" and sending back the HASH for the block would kind of
work as PoW

[Quantex]

I'm not surprised with this.

I already know that BCH is only a trap to exploit people's BTC and ETH by incentivizing them to get more BCH by spending their BTC and ETH.

All normal, let's beware of the BCH trap!

[scottykarate]

You obviously know jack shit about networking/WAN or computers for that matter by basing anything off of a user's home internet speed.

You are obviously an idiot.
And have little understanding of the fact the majority of the internet speed is still running off of copper.

The Potential of Fiber Optics :

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/nokia-terabits-per-second-cable-speed-record/

Another cable, Marea, being laid between the US and Spain, will carry 160Tbps over 16 fibres (10Tbps per fibre) when it's inaugurated sometime in 2017-2018.
If Marea upped its per-fibre speed to 65Tbps its total capacity would be around 520Tbps, or 65 terabytes per second.
That would let you transfer about 16,250 4GB Blu-ray rips per second.

And the Fact Moore's Law still exists.

Shows you are clueless of the tech available.


╥Aztek

Again, you don't know shit. Read up about routing protocols, WAN circuits, back bones, LECs and Colocation. Also try transferring large files across your home network or multiple hard drives if you have them on your PC. Read up on HD seek time, FSB, L2 cache and the like and then come back at me with your idiotic formulas above.
There's nothing close to wire speed even on a LAN, let alone WAN.

[Yakamoto]

The mining network has managed to shave off almost 100k transactions in the last two days, that's pretty impressive, to say the least. The fees should be going down considerably with time, we just have to wait for them to all finally get cut down and go back to the point at which we're looking at maybe 20k transactions being unconfirmed at any one time, maximum. The numbers right now have probably been the worst they've ever been, but it should be getting much better with time.

BCH definitely seems overhyped in comparison these days.

[Anti-Cen]

3rd Parties can always run offchain processing thru debit cards and only transfer onchain when needed to give unlimited scaling.

No, No, No i am not having it and it's poor excuse for you to even be trying it on.

BTC or anything else needs to provide a full service or move over and let Beethoven take over

My Android app on my phone via a Q-Code needs to pay for my taxi to work, my Coffey and then
let me enjoy a meal later in the day plus micro-transactions like $0.01 for viewing a VIP web-page
and believe me we are going to be getting a lot of them sooner or later.

Lets for now call it 1bn transactions a day and then lets see how sharing a few terabytes of data
goes between 20,000 full nodes

Come on, your a smart guy, admit you are wrong and what about my 72KWH of power and all
this PoW your wallet is doing because that $0.01 VIP page is going to cost someone $1000 in
a energy bill.  

 

[scottykarate]

You obviously know jack shit about networking/WAN or computers for that matter by basing anything off of a user's home internet speed.

You are obviously an idiot.
And have little understanding of the fact the majority of the internet speed is still running off of copper.

The Potential of Fiber Optics :

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/nokia-terabits-per-second-cable-speed-record/

Another cable, Marea, being laid between the US and Spain, will carry 160Tbps over 16 fibres (10Tbps per fibre) when it's inaugurated sometime in 2017-2018.
If Marea upped its per-fibre speed to 65Tbps its total capacity would be around 520Tbps, or 65 terabytes per second.
That would let you transfer about 16,250 4GB Blu-ray rips per second.

And the Fact Moore's Law still exists.

Shows you are clueless of the tech available.


╥Aztek

Again, you don't know shit. Read up about routing protocols, WAN circuits, back bones, LECs and Colocation. Also try transferring large files across your home network or multiple hard drives if you have them on your PC. Read up on HD seek time, FSB, L2 cache and the like and then come back at me with your idiotic formulas above.
There's nothing close to wire speed even on a LAN, let alone WAN.

You're an idiot that probably claim 1MB was too much.
So what does your dumb ass think the current limit is in block size?


╥Aztek

Nope, thanks for playing. Good job refuting the what I said. Until any crypto can come up with something like Layer 2 switching did for LAN/Ethernet, I think it won't be a viable payment option for mass adoption.

[scottykarate]

You obviously know jack shit about networking/WAN or computers for that matter by basing anything off of a user's home internet speed.

You are obviously an idiot.
And have little understanding of the fact the majority of the internet speed is still running off of copper.

The Potential of Fiber Optics :

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/nokia-terabits-per-second-cable-speed-record/

Another cable, Marea, being laid between the US and Spain, will carry 160Tbps over 16 fibres (10Tbps per fibre) when it's inaugurated sometime in 2017-2018.
If Marea upped its per-fibre speed to 65Tbps its total capacity would be around 520Tbps, or 65 terabytes per second.
That would let you transfer about 16,250 4GB Blu-ray rips per second.

And the Fact Moore's Law still exists.

Shows you are clueless of the tech available.


╥Aztek

Again, you don't know shit. Read up about routing protocols, WAN circuits, back bones, LECs and Colocation. Also try transferring large files across your home network or multiple hard drives if you have them on your PC. Read up on HD seek time, FSB, L2 cache and the like and then come back at me with your idiotic formulas above.
There's nothing close to wire speed even on a LAN, let alone WAN.

You're an idiot that probably claim 1MB was too much.
So what does your dumb ass think the current limit is in block size?


╥Aztek

Nope, thanks for playing. Good job refuting the what I said. Until any crypto can come up with something like Layer 2 switching did for LAN/Ethernet, I think it won't be a viable payment option for mass adoption.

Yep , big mouth small mind, that sums you up.

If it was up to you we on still be on 56k dial up modems.



╥Aztek

Good one!!! That makes perfect sense. Like I said, your little attempt to show off some BS formulas was just a sign of ignorance and talking out your ass.
What do you think about the impact of the net neutrality change and crypto?

[sobriket]

Well, why dont you post the TX id from the payment that you did so we can confirm it? I really believe in that bitcoin cash is CRAP, but please, give us some proofs, or how did you managed it to make it go through fast?

[scottykarate]

Good one!!! That makes perfect sense. Like I said, your little attempt to show off some BS formulas was just a sign of ignorance and talking out your ass.

So far ,  aside from insults you have said nothing to prove you know anything.


╥Aztek

I don't have to prove anything other than you are basing your numbers on home internet bandwidth and that makes 0 sense to anyone who knows anything about networking and computers.
That proves you're talking about something you have no clue about.

And yes, what I said applies to Bitcoin as well as any other crypto. I think answer is in development other than blocksize. No, I definitely don't think Bitcoin is scalable in current form.