CSW's "hash wars" impact on BTC price?

[exstasie]

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

At this point that's true, partly because Core mounted such strong arguments against a hard fork block size increase and because that contingent is so entrenched in the community now. And partly because hard forks get harder to pull off over time as stakeholders with differing interests develop.

Back in 2015, if Core had merged the code and not explicitly opposed it, I bet you'd find a lot less opposition than now.

[pooya87]

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

At this point that's true, partly because Core mounted such strong arguments against a hard fork block size increase and because that contingent is so entrenched in the community now. And partly because hard forks get harder to pull off over time as stakeholders with differing interests develop.

Back in 2015, if Core had merged the code and not explicitly opposed it, I bet you'd find a lot less opposition than now.

eventually block size also has to increase unless the adoption stops here and doesn't grow any further. there is just so much you can do with soft forks such as SegWit and other proposals such as Schnorr and signature aggregation that it can offer for multisignatures to reduce their size but in the end it won't be enough in the long run.
and i don't think the developers were opposing block size increase, they were opposing increasing it right now without activating SegWit first and enabling LN to mature first.

[exstasie]

eventually block size also has to increase unless the adoption stops here and doesn't grow any further. there is just so much you can do with soft forks such as SegWit and other proposals such as Schnorr and signature aggregation that it can offer for multisignatures to reduce their size but in the end it won't be enough in the long run.
and i don't think the developers were opposing block size increase, they were opposing increasing it right now without activating SegWit first and enabling LN to mature first.

I agree the Core developers aren't totally opposed to block size increases. But I also think the arguments from 2-3 years ago have really entrenched the "small blockers" and that complicates things politically. I think there is a significant portion of the community that would oppose a hard fork and would prefer to see fees rise......not necessarily a majority, but enough to make a hard fork very difficult to implement without causing a network split.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe Roger Ver still doesn't understand that Core cannot raise the blocksize. If they did agreed, it would just cause a clusterfuck similar to what we've seen with Bitcoin Cash, because even if Core agreed, there are big Bitcoin pockets that wouldn't, so as soon as the split happened, the dump wars would begin and it wouldn't be pretty.

At this point that's true, partly because Core mounted such strong arguments against a hard fork block size increase and because that contingent is so entrenched in the community now. And partly because hard forks get harder to pull off over time as stakeholders with differing interests develop.

Back in 2015, if Core had merged the code and not explicitly opposed it, I bet you'd find a lot less opposition than now.

eventually block size also has to increase unless the adoption stops here and doesn't grow any further.

Eventually, maybe. But not because there's a small group in the commumity who wants to pressure the Core developers to do it now because "reasons".

there is just so much you can do with soft forks such as SegWit and other proposals such as Schnorr and signature aggregation that it can offer for multisignatures to reduce their size but in the end it won't be enough in the long run.

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

and i don't think the developers were opposing block size increase, they were opposing increasing it right now without activating SegWit first and enabling LN to mature first.

I believe they were against the idea because bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. They were also against the idea of risking a network split. A hard fork also amputates the network of full nodes.

[exstasie]

I believe they were against the idea because bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. They were also against the idea of risking a network split. A hard fork also amputates the network of full nodes.

The elephant in the room was the possibility of a network split. In a truly decentralized network, a hard fork would be nearly impossible to coordinate without splitting the network. That's still the main danger today and it's why having any sense of urgency around increasing block size is an unacceptable position.

I think there is/was a general feeling that increasing block size = kicking the can down the road. It doesn't solve anything and puts the entire design at the mercy of technological improvements.

[jbreher]

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

[exstasie]

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That's impressive. I'm all for different protocols having different approaches to scaling.

I do wonder how the mining incentives will play out long term. That's the main reason why I support smaller block sizes in Bitcoin: to produce higher fees that can eventually replace the block subsidy (for mining security). With unlimited block size, I feel the design is too dependent on either an endless stream of transaction demand or endless price rise.

[Wind_FURY]

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network. Dogecoin, on average, processes more transactions than Bitcoin Cash SV, https://cash.coin.dance

[STT]

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment.     I realise everybody is competing with everyone else but I dont want to look negatively on any blockchain even if its forked from one I support.  As a sector overall, crypto has to advance as we all know big business just wants to centralise this whole idea and handle it all itself in house.   Only the competitive advancement by various protocols is likely to really find a solution that plain society really wants and values and is willing to pay for and invest in, otherwise I see all of us on every chain as not winning this likely long term

[Wind_FURY]

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment.     I realise everybody is competing with everyone else but I dont want to look negatively on any blockchain even if its forked from one I support.  As a sector overall, crypto has to advance as we all know big business just wants to centralise this whole idea and handle it all itself in house.   Only the competitive advancement by various protocols is likely to really find a solution that plain society really wants and values and is willing to pay for and invest in, otherwise I see all of us on every chain as not winning this likely long term

It would sound "massive", in a good way, only to the people who have not tried to research, and understand how inherently centralizing big blocks are. The big blockers will label it as "propaganda" on their convenience, and reply with propaganda of their own.

Newbies should not be trapped into their narrative.

[STT]

I never assume at face value, just was interested to learn why and so on.   Markets are often ironic anyway, intended effects go a different way, best laid plans and all that.   I'm a big fan of natural dynamics and chaos theory and such like :p

[Wind_FURY]

I never assume at face value, just was interested to learn why and so on.   Markets are often ironic anyway, intended effects go a different way, best laid plans and all that.   I'm a big fan of natural dynamics and chaos theory and such like :p

The "why" is to show that they can make a 64mb block. That we already know, but does the Bitcoin Cash SV network have the demand to process that much transactions every block, everyday is the problem.

Plus if they can process that much, you have to ask how much that inherently scales their network in.

[nutildah]

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

That sounds massive, was there a special need for a 64mb block at that moment.

Not at all. And it wasn't "recently," it was once, ever.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ymkiw/64mb_block_mined_on_sv/

Much like everything else that has to do with SV it was completely manipulated. The fastest average transactions per second SV has ever recorded was 3.34, and that was also only in 1 hour of 1 day.

https://bsvexplorer.io/blocks

Not to mention, the average block size for SV is currently about 10 KB.

https://bsvexplorer.io/tx-stats

The whole "appeal" of BCH was "bigger blocks," and did it catch on with the mainstream? No.

So yet another altcoin whose whole premise is "even bigger blocks" (supported by even bigger egos btw) is doomed to fail.

[jbreher]

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

[exstasie]

I guess that is a matter of perspective. Is there a need to demonstrate capacity?

We already know segwit fails miserably at a tiny fraction of that load.

Fees would definitely rise, but I'm not sure that's a miserable failure.

The purpose of Segwit wasn't to increase tx/s capacity. The point was to establish a building block for exponential off-chain scaling. If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

[jbreher]

I guess that is a matter of perspective. Is there a need to demonstrate capacity?

We already know segwit fails miserably at a tiny fraction of that load.

Fees would definitely rise, but I'm not sure that's a miserable failure.

The purpose of Segwit wasn't to increase tx/s capacity.

Sorry. I shorthanded. I didn't mean segwit the incremental protocol change. I meant the current core protocol set. I subbed 'segwit' for Bitcoin Segwit. That blockchain is incapable of handling a mere fraction of that load.

The point was to establish a building block for exponential off-chain scaling.

Fair enough, but it is smoke and mirrors...

If you could have 480 tx/s with strong security incentives, without publishing most of them to the blockchain, wouldn't that be better?

No. If it is not published to the blockchain, it is not a bitcoin transaction.

[Wind_FURY]

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

[nutildah]

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also.

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

You have a valid point here, I just don't care for the heavy-handed psy ops that leaders of alternative chains use in order to promote their own economic interests. Their main tactic seems to be introducing more confusion into an area that the general population already finds dauntingly confusing.

[jbreher]

Segwit already increased the block size to double, some developers say it could go up to 4mb.

Haha. Thats.... cute.

The SV network sucked down a block bigger than 64 MB recently.

And was hungry for more.

In minutes.

Better than 480 tx/s, yo.

Hahahaha! You posted that as if 64mb blocks was a regular thing in your network.

Nonsense. I posted it as if the network was capable of handling that much demand.

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

But I believe the ABC, and SV developers are each doing good science experiments though. Keep it up.

Well, we don't yet know if the system can handle that sort of sustained throughput. We do know that the next block was propagated about five minutes later (luck of the draw), and the system happily linked it to the >64MB block. So we have some preliminary evidence that it may. And we know that -- contrary to the claims of core -- nodes can indeed handle blocks larger than 4MB. That is, if the protocol supports it, and the implementation does not contain any self-imposed bottlenecks (such as a naive mutitasking model).

The probing at the limits has not come to a conclusion. More developments are expected.

[jbreher]

The problem is, can the Bitcoin Cash SV network maintain handling 64mb blocks 24 hours a day, everyday, for decades, without scaling the network in?

This will never be a problem. BCH has trouble coming close to filling its blocks, there's no reason why SV wouldn't also.

BTC also had problems filling blocks. All the way up to the scaleapocalypse.

We know how this story ends.